THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


FIRST 


Free  Lutheran  Diet 

.^If^-AMERICA, 

PHILADELPHIA,  DECEMBER  27-28,  1877. 

the'essays,  debates 


PHILADELPHIA 

J.  FREDERICK  SMITH,  PUBLISHER, 

42  NORTH  NINTH  STREET. 

1878. 


COPYRIGHT 

By  J.  FREDERICK  SMITH, 
1878. 


PRESS   OP 

INQUIRER   P.  t   P.  CO. 

LANCASTER,  PA. 


eo4-l 


PREFACE. 


After  the  adjournment  of  the  Diet,  the  secretaries  divided  the 
work  assigned  between  them,  Dr.  Baum  undertaking  to  secure  a 

H  pubhsher,  and  the  undersigned  to  collect  the  essays  and  remarks, 
and  edit  the  book.     The  call  (p.  lo)  specified  as  one  of  the  rules 

*'^   of  the  Diet,  that  a  synopsis  of  each  speech  in  the  discussion  be 

^  furnished  for  publication.  It  was  only,  however,  by  a  great  deal  ot 
correspondence  and  delay,  that  the  remarks  here  published  were 

^j    secured,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  from  the  speakers  themselves. 

"in    Considerable  delay  has  resulted  also  from  the  reading  of  the  proof 
cvj       .        ^  ,      .  , 

>    of  each  essay  by  its  author. 
a; 

The  book,  as  it  now  appears,  we  believe,  will  be  found  by  those 

who  were  present  at  the  Diet,  to  faithfully  reproduce  everything  of 

o    essential  importance  in  its  proceedings.     We  have  endeavored,  by 

^    means  of  a  full  table  of  contents  and  indexes,  to  render  its  many 

Q    items  of  value  readily  accessible. 

y        In  addition  to  Dr.  Baum,  speciial  acknowledgments  are  due  Drs. 

'^    Seiss,  Krauth,   Diehl   and  Valentine,   for  important   services   and 

suggestions  connected  with  the  editing  of  the  volume. 

H.  E.  JACOBS. 

Gettysburg,  March  2jd,  1878. 


449651 


OOISTTEE'TS. 


PAGE. 

Call  for  the  Diet g 

Members  of  Diet 1 1 

Opening  Remarks  I)y  Dr.  Morris 13 

First  Paper  :     ''  The  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles 

of  the  Anglican  Church,"  by  Rev.  J.  G.  Morris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.  .      15 
Second  Paper  :     "  The  Relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the  Denom- 
inations around  us,"  by  Rev.  C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 27 

Remarks  of  Rev.  D.  P.  Rosenmiller 70 

"  "         C.  W.  Schaeffer,  D.  D 70 

F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D 72 

"  "         J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 73 

"  "         C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 77 

Third  Paper  :     "The  Four  General  Bodies  of  the  Lutheran  Church   in 
the  United  States  :     Wherein  they  agree,  and  wherein  they  might 

harmoniously  cooperate,"  by  Rev.  J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 80 

Remarks  of  Rev.  D.  P.  Rosenmiller 96 

"  "         W.  J.  Mann,  D.  D 96,98 

"  "         Prof.  V.  L.  Conrad 97,  99 

F.  W.  Conrad,  D.D 99 

"  "         A.  C.  Wedekind,  D.  D loi 

"  "         R.  A.  Fink,  D.  D 102 

"  "         W.S.Emery.. 103 

«  "         J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 104 

Fourth  Paper  :     "  The  History  and  Progress  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in 

the  United  States,"  by  Rev.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  D.  D 107 

Remarks  of  Rev.  F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D 137 

"  "         J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 139 

C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 141 

"  "         D.  P.  Rosenmiller 144 

Fifth    Paper:     "  Education   in   the   Lutheran    Church    in   the    United 

States,"  by  Rev.  M.  Valentine,  D.D 145 

Remarks  of  Rev.  C.  A.  Stork,  D.  D 160 

"  "         J.  F.  Reinmund,  D.  D 163 

A.  Spaeth,  D.D 163 

Note  from  M.  Valentine,  D.  D 164 

Sixth  Paper  :  "  The  interests  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America  as  af- 
fected by  Diversities  of  Language,"  by  D.  Luther,  M.  D 165 

(vii) 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Remarks  of  Rev.  L.  E.  Albert,  D.  D 171 

J.  K.  Plitt 172 

"  "         J.  B.  Rath 172 

"  "         J.  Kohler 174 

'^  "         W.  J.  Mann,  D.  D 176 

"  "         A.  Spaeth,  D.  D 176 

"  "         D.  Luther,  M.D 177 

Seventh  Paper  :    "  Misunderstandings    and   Misrepresentations   of  the 

Lutheran  Church,"  by  Rev.  J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D 180 

Remarks  of  Rev.  C.  W.  Shaeffer,  D.  D 194 

"  "         J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 195 

"         C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 199 

"  "         J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D 204 

Eighth  Paper  :  "The  Characteristics   of  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  by 

Rev.  F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D 206 

Remarks  of  Rev.  C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 233 

"  "         J.  A.  Brow^n,  D.  D 237 

Note  of  Rev.  C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 238 

Ninth  Paper:  "True  and  False  Spirituality  in  the  Lutheran  Church," 

by  Rev.  E.  Green wald,  D.  D 243 

Tenth  Paper:  "Liturgical  Forms  in  Worship,"  by  Rev.  C.  A.  Stork,  D.D.  257 

Remarks  of  Rev.  L.  E.  Albert,  D.  D 272 

F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D 272 

"  "         J.  A.  Brown,  D.D 274 

Eleventh  Paper  :  "  Theses  on  the  Lutheranism   of  the  Fathers  of  the 

Church  in  this  Country,"  by  Rev.  W.  J.  Mann,  D.  D 276 

Remarks  of  Rev.  J.  G.  Morris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 283,  284 

W.  J.  Mann,  D.  D 284 

''         J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 284,  285 

C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D 285,289 

J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D 286 

C.  F.  Welden 288 

Twelfth  Paper  :  "  The  Divine  and  Human  Factors  in   the  Call  to  the 
Ministerial  Office,  according  to  the  Older  Lutheran  Authorities, 

by  Rev.  G.  Diehl,  D.  D 292 

Remarks  of  Rev.  N.  M.  Price 309 

"  "         W.  J.  Morris,  D.  D 309,312 

"  "         J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D 309,  312 

"         F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D 310 

Thirteenth  Paper  :  "  The  Educational   and   Sacramental  Ideas  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.'in  relation  to  Practical  Piety,"   by  Rev.  A.  C. 

Wedekind,  D.D 

Closing  Remarks  of  Rev.  J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D 331 

Closing  Resolutions 333 

Closing  Remarks  of  Rev.  F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D 334 

Adjournment 335 


PROCEEDINGS. 


T 


he  following  call  had   for  some  weeks  been  circulated  through 
the  Church  papers: 


A    LUTHERAN   CHURCH    DIET. 

A  Free  Diet  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  to  discuss  living  subjects  of  general 
worth  and  importance  to  all  Lutherans,  has  been  arranged  to  be  held  in  St. 
Matthew's  church  (Dr.  Baum's),  in  Philadelphia,  beginning  at  lo  A.  M.  on 
Thursday,  December  27th,  1877,  to  be  in  session  several  days. 

The  chief  business  of  this  Diet  will  be  the  reading  of  essays  on  given  topics 
by  men  engaged  for  the  purpose,  and  the  free  discussion  of  the  subject  of  each 
essay  after  its  presentation.  The  essayists  engaged,  and  with  whom  is  the  re 
sponsibility  for  the  calling  and  character  of  this  Diet,  are  ; 

1.  Rev.  J.  G.  Morris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  Baltimore,  Md.  Subject :  "The 
Augsburg  Confession  the  Source  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  incidentally  of  all  other  Protestant  Confessions." 

2.  Rkv.  Prof.  C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.  Subject  : 
"  The  Relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  Denominations  around  us." 

3.  Rev.  Prof.  J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D.,  of  Gettysburg,  Pa.  Subject:  "  The  Four 
General  Bodies  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States;  wherein  they 
agree,  and  wherein  they  might  harmoniously  co-operate." 

4.  Rev.  Prof.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  D.  D.,  of  Gettysburg,  Pa.  Subject:  "The 
History  and  Progress  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States." 

5.  Rev.  Prof.  M.  Valentine,  D.  D.,  of  Gettysburg,  Pa.  Subject :  "  Edu- 
cation, in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States." 

6.  Rev.  Prof.  S.  A.  Repass,  D.  D  ,  of  Salem,  Va.  Subject:  "The  Con- 
servatism of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States." 

7.  Rev.  J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D.,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.  Subject:  "The  Misun- 
derstandings and  Misrepresentations  of  the  Lutheran  Church." 

8.  Rev.  F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D.,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.  Subject:  The  Charac- 
teristics of  the  Augsburg  Confession." 

9.  Rev.  E.  Greenwald,  D.  D.,  of  Lancaster,  Pa.  Subject:  "  False  and 
True  Spiritualism." 

(9) 


lO  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

10.  Rev.  C.  A.  Stork,  D.  D.,  of  BUtimore,  Md.  Subject :  "  Liturgical 
Forms  in  Worship." 

11.  Rev.  G.  F.  Krotet,  D.  D.,  of  New  York,  N.  Y.  Subject :  "Tlie  Pol- 
ity of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  declared  in  the  Confessions." 

12.  Rev.  a.  C.  Wedekind,  D.  D.,  of  New  York,  N.  Y.  Subject :  "The 
Educational  and  Sacramental  Ideas  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Relation  to 
Practical  Piety." 

13.  Rev.  Prof.  W.  J.  Man.v,  D.  D.,  of  Philadelphia,  Pa.  Subject :  "  Theses 
on  the  Lutheranism  of  the  Fathers  of  our  Church  in  this  Country." 

14.  Rev.  G.  Diehl.,  D.  D.,  of  Frederick,  Md.  Subject:  "The  Divine  and 
Human  Factors  in  the  Call  to  the  Ministry,  as  viewed  by  Lutheran  Theolo- 
gians." 

All  Lutherans,  clerical   and    lay,  without  respect  to  synodical   connections, 

are  invited  to  seats  and  membership  in  this  Diet,  with  the  privilege  of  partici- 
pation in  the  discussions. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Morris  will  preside,  and  the  Rev.  Drs.  Jacobs  and  Baum  will 
act  as  secretaries. 

No  essay  is  to  exceed  forty-five  minutes  in  length,  and  no  speech  in  the  gen- 
eral discussion  shall  exceed  ten  minutes,  and  the  essayist  shall  always  have  the 
right  to  make  the  closing  speech  on  the  subject  presented  by  him. 

No  subjects  will  be  discussed  other  than  those  of  the  essays ;  and  no  vote 
will  be  taken  on  any  of  the  subjects  considered. 

No  essay  will  be  received  which  has  already  appeared  in  print,  and  the  man- 
uscript of  each  essay  is  to  be  furnished  for  publication  ;  also  a  synopsis  of  each 
speech  in  the  discussion. 

The  peculiar  difficulties  of  the  situation,  and  the  hazardous  uncertainty  of 
calling  an  unorganized  promiscuous  convention,  have  induced  the  determina- 
tion of  all  the  arrangements  in  advance,  as  above  given,  and  no  proposed 
changes  for  this  Diet  will  be  entertained.  If  others  should  follow  it,  the  method 
of  procedure  may  be  according  to  what  is  thought  best  after  the  experience  in 
this  case. 

Though  all  these  things  have  been,  as  only  they  could  be,  privately  arranged, 
here  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  there  will  be  a  general  interest  in  what  is 
thus  proposed,  and  that  our  ministers  and  laymen  will  heartily  second  what  has 
been  done,  and  favor  the  Diet  with  their  presence  and  participation. 

In  respon.se  to  this  call,  a  number  of  members  of  the  Lutheran 
church,  assembled  in  St.  Matthew's  Evangelical  Lutheran  church, 
corner  of  Broad  and  Mount  Vernon  streets,  Philadelphia,  Rev.  W. 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET, 


I  I 


M.  Baum,  D.  D.,  pastor,  on  Thursday,  December  27th,  1877,  at 
10  o'clock  A.  M.  Among  those  present  during  the  sessions  of  the 
Diet  were  tlie  following: 


MINISTERS. 


Rev.  C.  S.  Albert, 

"  L.  E.  Albert,  D.  D., 

"  J.  C.  Bcaum, 

«  W.  M.  Baum,  D.  U., 

"  J.  A.  Baumann, 

"  J.  F.  Bayer, 

"  J.  L.  Becker, 

"  F.  P.  Bender, 

"  F.  Benedict, 

"  FI.  M.  Bickel, 

"  T.  C.  Billheimer, 

"  S.  R.  Boyer, 

"  J.  A.  Brown,  D.  D., 

"  E.  S.  Brownmiller, 

'*  D.  L.  Coleman, 

"  B.  B.  Collins, 

"  H.  S.  Cook, 

"  F.  W.  Conrad,  D.  D., 

"  V.  L.  Conrad, 

"  C.  J.  Cooper, 

''  John  CroU, 

"  G.  Diehl,  D.  D., 

''  J.  F.  Diener, 

"  J.  R.  Dimm, 

''  J.  C.  Dizinger, 

"  T.  W.  Dosh,  D.  D., 

'•  W.  H.  Dunbar, 

"  O.  F.  Ebert, 

"  W.  S.  Emery, 

"  I.  N.  S.  Erb, 

"  W.  P.  Evans, 

"  R.  A.  Fink,  D.  D., 

"  S.  A.  K.  Francis, 

"  W.  S.  Freas, 

"  G.  W.  Frederick, 

«  W.  K.  Frick, 

"  J.  H.  Fritz, 

"  Z.  H.  Gable, 

"  D.  H.  Geissinger, 

"  H.  Grahn, 

"  J.  R.  Groff, 


Rev.  L.  Groh, 

"  J.  B.  Haskell, 

"  T.  Ileilig, 

"  L.  M.  Heilman, 

"  S.  S.  Henry, 

"  A.  Ililler, 

"  C.  J.  Hirzel, 

"  E.  Huber, 

"  F.  K.  Huntzinger, 

"  H.  E.  Jacobs,  D.  D., 

"  F.  A.  Kaehler, 

"  F.  C.  C.  Kaehler, 

"  C.  L.  Keedy,  M.  D., 

"  D.  K.  Kepner, 

"  F.  Klinefelter, 

"  C.  Koerner, 

"  J.  Kohler, 

"  C.  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.D. 

"  J.  A.  Kunkelman, 

"  C.  E.  Lindberg, 

"  W.  J.  Mann,  D.  D., 

"  H.  W.  McKnight, 

"  G.  F.  Miller, 

"  M.  R.  Minnich, 

"  J.  G.  Morris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

"  F.  A.  Muhlenberg,  D.  D., 

"  W.  H.  Myers, 

"  George  NefF, 

"  J.  Nickum, 

"  S.  Palmer, 

"  J.  K.  Plitt, 

"  N.  M.  Price, 

"  J.  B.  Rath, 

"  J.  F.  Reinmund,  D.  D., 

"  J.  S.  Renninger, 

•'  Prof.  M.  H.  Richards, 

"  D.  P.  Rosenmiller, 

"  J.  W.  Rumple, 

"  B.  Sadtler,  D.  D., 

"  C.  W.  Schaeffer,  D.  D., 

"  O.  Schroeder, 


12 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


Rev.  A.  Schulthes, 
"     M.  Sheeleigh, 
"     J.  A.  Seiss,  D.  D., 
"     A.  Spaeth,  D.D., 
"     W.  H.  Steck, 
"     C.  A.  Stork,  D.  D., 
•'     H.  B.  Strohdach, 
"     A.  Z.  Thomas, 
"     B.  W.  Tomlinson, 
"     J.Q.  Upp, 

STUDENTS   OF   THEOLOGY 


Rev.  M.  Valentine,  D.D., 

"  O.  F.  Waage, 

"  A.  C.  Wedekind,  D.  D.; 

"  A.  J.  Weddel, 

"  R.  F.  Weidner, 

"  C.  F.  Weldcn, 

"  A.  M.  Whetstone, 

"  F.  Wischan, 

♦'  M.  L.  Young. 


J.  W.  Albiecht, 
H.  G.  Artnian, 
W.  M.  Baum,  Jr., 

E.  Cassidy, 
H.  P.  Clymer, 
O.  H.  Hemsath, 
J.  H.  Kline, 
J.  S.  Koiner, 

Charles  Baum,  M.  D., 

F.  V.  Beisel, 
F.  VV.  Bennett, 
J.  P.  Berlin, 
H.  S.  Bonar, 

Prof.  E.  S.  Breidenbaugh, 

Martin  Buehler, 

F.  Byerly, 

E.  H.  Delk, 

J.  R.  Eby, 

M.  E.  Eyler, 

E.  J.  Frank, 

H.  E.  Goodman,  M.  D., 

S.  Gerhard, 

J.  E.  Graeff, 

D.  K.  Grim, 
J.  E.  Heyl, 
J.  K.  Heyl, 
Wm.  E.  Ileyl, 
L.  L.  Houpt, 

E.  M.  Heilig, 
N.  Jacoby, 

J.  P.  Keller,  M.  D., 
P.  P.  Keller, 
W.  ¥.  Koiner, 
E.  F.  Lott, 


LAYMEN. 


E.  G.  Lund, 

F.  P.  Manhart, 
A.  B.  Markley, 
T.  B.  Roth, 
M.  Schaible, 

C.  F.  Tiemann, 
H.  B.  Wile. 


D.  Luther,  M.  D., 
G.  W.  Martin, 

J.  W.  Miller, 

R.  B.  Miller, 

T.  J   Miller, 

W.  J.  Miller, 

W.  F.  Muhlenberg,M.  D., 

G.  P.  Ockershausen, 

J.  F.  Rau, 

Prof.  S.  P.  Sadtler,  Ph.D., 

F.  Schaack, 

W.  G.  Schaeffer, 

P.  M.  Schiedt,  M.  D., 

E.  G.  Smyser, 
C.  A.  Snyder, 

W.  H.  Staake,  Esq., 
W.  E.  Stahler, 
L.  K.  Stein,  M.  D., 
P.  C.  Stockhauser, 
C.  P.  Suesserott, 
E.  B.  Weaver, 

G.  A.  Weisel, 
Henry  Wile, 
L.  G.  Wile, 

J.  N.  Wunderlich, 
J,  B.  Zimmerle. 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET.  1 3 

The  President,  Rev.  J.  G.  Morris,  D.  D.,  LL.D.,  of  Baltimore, 
Md.,  opened  the  session  with  prayer. 

He  then  made  certain  statements  concerning  the  purposes  con- 
templated in  the  call,  as  follows: 

REMARKS  OF  DR.    MORRIS  AT   THE    OPENING  OF   THE  DIET. 

We  meet  to-day,  brethren,  under  unusual  and  very  interesting 
circumstances;  it  is  not  as  a  Synod,  nor  an  ecclesiastical  board,  nor 
a  local  Conference,  in  all  of  which  we  have  all  heretofore  served,  but 
as  a  free  Diet  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  our  Church  in 
this  country.  We  are  not  the  delegates  of  any  Church  Association, 
nor  are  we  the  selected  representatives  of  any  constituency.  Every 
Lutheran  minister  and  layman  has  equal  rights  here,  and  every  one 
is  at  liberty  to  express  his  sentiments  upon  the  papers  that  shall  be 
read. 

It  was  thought  that  we  who  without  presumption  claim  to  be  the 
mother  church  of  Protestantism,  should  occasionally  come  together 
in  large  numbers  and  fraternally  talk  of  the  various  distinguishing 
features  of  our  Communion,  not  so  much  with  the  design  of  harmon- 
izing unessential  differences  upon  disputed  points  ;  not  to  ascertain 
the  opinions  of  our  learned  divines  on  various  doctrines,  for  those 
we  already  know ;  not  to  disturb  any  existing  associations  by  at- 
tempting to  merge  them  into  one,  but  to  demonstrate  our  position 
as  a  people  in  the  great  family  of  churches  around  us — to  exhibit 
the  great  basis  of  our  Lutheran  faith — to  make  known  to  others  the 
scriptural  foundation  on  which  our  venerable  Church  rests — to  bring 
prominently  before  the  public  our  history  and  the  men  who  in  past 
times  have  achieved  great  triumphs  for  us  in  the  pulpit,  the  profes- 
sor's chair,  and  the  author's  study,  and  to  incite  our  own  ministers 
and  people  to  the  further  investigation  of  these  and  allied  sub- 
jects. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  these  and  other  good  results,  theological, 
literary,  ecclesiastical  and  social,  will  flow  from  the  proceedings  upon 
which  we  enter  this  day. 

The  difficulties  of  bringing  this  meeting  into  existence  were  many 
and  formidable,  but  I  am  satisfied  that  if  it  had  not  been  privately 
done,  no  Diet  would  have  been  held.  If  the  time,  the  men,  the  place, 
the  subjects,  and  other  essential  particulars,  had  been  discussed  in  the 
Church  papers,  we  never  would  have  come  to  any  harmonious  de- 


14  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET, 

cision.  If  the  invitation  to  submit  essays  had  been  general,  the 
number  offered  would  have  been  so  great  as  to  have  protracted  the 
meeting  to  an  inconvenient  length  ;  some  of  them  might  have  been 
objectionable  on  various  grounds.  The  necessity  of  a  committee  of 
inspection,  which  is  usual  in  many  bodies  of  this  character,  would 
have  arisen  and  this  work  would  have  taken  much  time,  and  the  re- 
sult would  have  given  offence.  For  these  and  other  reasons,  it  was 
thought  best  to  make  the  arrangements  privately,  although  we  anti- 
cipated difficulty  and  censure,  but  yet  we  would  thus  avoid  pro- 
tracted discussion  at  the  opening  of  the  meeting,  the  time  consumed 
in  the  election  of  officers,  the  appointment  of  committees,  and  all 
the  other  time-wasting  preliminaries  of  organizing  an  irresponsible 
assembly. 

I  have  the  best  reasons  for  knowing  that  some  highly  esteemed 
and  even  scholarly  brethren  are  dissatisfied  with  our  arrangements ; 
their  friends  also  complain  ;  but  with  all  due  respect  let'me  say  that 
we  could  not  do  otherwise—  or  rather  we  did  not  do  otherwise.  We 
are  satisfied  with  what  has  been  done,  and  I  think  that  the  results  of 
this  meeting  will  satisfy  all  reasonable  men. 

Brethren,  this  Diet  is  now  declared  open ;  you  have  heard  the 
rules  according  to  which  it  will  be  governedj  and  the  first  paper  on 
the  programme  will  now  be  read. 

It  will,  however,  first  be  necessary  for  the  Diet  to  determine  the 
order  in  which  the  papers  shall  be  read. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  C.  W.  Schaeffer,  seconded  by  Dr.  Conrad,  it 
was  resolved  that  the  essays  be  read  and  discussed  according  to  the 
published  order. 

The  first  paper  was  accordingly  read. 


THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  AND  THE  THIRTY- 
NINE  ARTICLES  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 


BY  REV.   JOHN  G.   MORRIS,   D.   D.,  LL.D.,   BALTIMORE,   MD. 

I'^HE  Augsburg  Confession  is  tlie  doctrinal  magna  charta  of  ail 
Protestantdom.  Just  as  all  free  nations  of  the  earth  have  drawn 
their  principles  of  civil  government  from  the  English  "Great 
Charter  of  Liberties,"  extorted  from  King  John,  in  1215,  so  all 
Protestant  organizations  have  based  their  Formulas  of  Faith  upon 
the  greater  "Bill  of  Rights,"  extorted  from  Charles  V.  in  Augs- 
burg,  1530. 

An  interesting  and  instructive  analogy  might  be  drawn  between 
these  two  famous  declarations  of  civil  and  religious  principles. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  the  first  Confession  of  Faith 
adopted  after  the  Reformation  was  begun,  and  the  substance  of  it, 
and,  in  many  instances,  its  precise  language,  have  been  incorporated 
into  every  similar  Declaration  adopted  by  other  Communions  since 
that  day.  It  is  the  standard  of  pure  Protestantism,  and  under  this 
banner  our  triumphs  have  been  achieved.^ 

It  is  our  purpose,  in  this  paper,  to  show  to  what  extent  the  Thirty- 

1  Its  influence  extends  far  beyond  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  struck  the  key 
note  to  other  evangelical  Confessions  and  strengthened  the  cause  of  the  Refor- 
mation everywhere.  It  is,  to  a  certain  extent  also,  the  Confession  of  the 
Reformed  and  the  so-called  union  churches  in  Germany,  namely,  with  the 
explanations  and  modifications  of  the  author  himself,  in  the  edition  of  1540. 
In  this  qualified  sense,  either  expressed  or  understood,  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion was  frequently  signed  by  Reformed  divines  and  princes,  even  by  John 
Calvin  while  ministering  to  the  Church  in  Strasburg,  and  as  delegate  to  the 
Conference  in  Ratisbon,  1541  ;  by  Favel  and  Beza,  at  the  Conference  in 
Worms,  1557;  by  the  Calvinists,  at  Bremen,  1562;  by  Frederick  III.  (Re- 
formed) Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  at  the  Convention  of  Princes  in  Nuremberg, 
1561,  and  again  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1566;  by  John  Sigismund  of  Bran- 
denburg in  1614. — Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I.,  235. 

(15) 


1 6  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET, 

Nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  indirectly  all  other 
Protestant  Confessions,  are  indebted  to  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
as  well  as  the  influence  which  the  Lutherans  of  Germany  had  upon 
the  English  divines  of  those  days  in  forming  their  theological  basis, 
not  only  in  their  Declaration  of  Faith,  but  also  in  the  completion 
of  their  Liturgy  and  Homilies. 

The  testimony  shall  be  principally  derived  from  eminent  divines 
of  the  English  Church,  accompanied  by  that  of  other  writers  of 
established  reputation.  All  these  quotations  are  taken  from  the 
original  sources. 

In  the  year  1804,  Archbishop  Laurence,  a  distinguished  dignitary 
of  the  Church  of  England,  preached  eight  sermons  before  the 
University  of  Oxford,  on  "An  attempt  to  illustrate  those  articles  of 
the  Church  of  England  which  the  Calvinists  improperly  considered 
Calvinistical."  These  sermons  constitute  a  volume  of  the  Bampton 
Lectures ;  the  new  edition  from  which  these  quotations  are  made,  is 
that  of  Oxford,  1820.  The  discourses  are  illustrated  by  learned 
and  extensive  notes. 

The  nature  of  the  sermons  may  be  inferred  from  the  themes  which 
are  here  given:  I.  The  General  Principles  of  the  Reformation 
om  its  commencement  to  the  period  when  our  Articles  were  com- 
posed, shewn  to  be  of  a  Lutheran  tendency.  IL  The  same  tendency 
pointed  out  in  the  Articles  themselves,  as  deducible  from  the  history 
of  their  composition.  IIL  On  Original  Sin,  as  maintained  by  the 
Scholastics,  the  Lutherans  and  our  own  Reformers.  IV.  On  the 
tenet  of  the  Schools  repecting  merit  de  congrteo,  and  that  of  the 
Lutherans  in  opposition  to  it.  V.  The  Article  of  "  Free  Will  "  and 
of  "Works  before  Sanctification,"  explained  in  connection  with 
the  preceding  controversy.  VI.  On  the  Scholastical  doctrine  of 
Justification,  the  Lutheran  and  that  of  our  own  Church.  VII.  The 
outline  of  the  Predestinarian  system  stated,  as  taught  in  the  Schools, 
and  as  Christianized  by  Luther  and  Melanchthon.  VIII.  The 
Seventeenth  Article  considered  in  conformity  with  the  sentiments 
of  the  latter,  and  elucidated  by  our  baptismal  service.  Brief  re- 
capitulation of  the  whole. 

We  should  like  to  give  copious  extracts  from  this  learned  work, 
but  we  are  compelled  to  be  brief: 

In  Sermon  L,  p.  12,  the  Archbishop  sa3's  : 

"In  this  country,  where  the  light  of  literature  could  not  be  con- 


DR.  morris'  address.  I 7 

cealed,  nor  the  love  of  truth  suppressed,  Lutheranism  found  numer- 
ous i)roselytes,  who  were  known  by  the  appellation  of  'The  men  of 
the  new  learning.'  This  was  particularly  the  case  after  the  rupture 
with  the  See  of  Rome." 

Henry  VIII.,  at  that  time  King  of  England,  undertook  to  reform 
the  doctrine  of  the  English  Church,  and  the  more  effectually  to 
propagate  the  new  principles  in  his  dominions,  and  to  accelerate  the 
arduous  task  in  which  he  was  engaged,  invited  the  ever  memorable 
Melanchthon  to  come  to  his  assistance.  That  he  tlid  not  .solicit 
the  co-operation  of  Luther  on  this  occasion,  should  not,  perhaps,  be 
solely  attributed  to  his  personal  dislike  of  the  Reformer ;  he  well 
knew  that  the  Protestant  Princes  themselves,  at  the  most  critical  pe- 
riod, had  manifested  a  greater  partiality  for  Melanchthon,  and  hence 
he  urged  the  latter  to  come  and  help  him,  but  he  refused. - 

Laurence  proceeds  to  say  : 

"Melanchthon  *  *  *  possessed  every  requisite  to  render  truth 
alluring  and  reformation  respectable,  and  hence  upon  him,  in  pre- 
ference, the  Princes  of  Germany  conferred  the  honor  of  compiling 
the  public  profession  of  their  Faith.  When  Henry  therefore  ap- 
plied for  the  assistance  of  this  favorite  divine,  by  seeking  the  aid 
of  one  to  whom  Lutheranism  had  been  indebted  for  her  Creed,  he 
placed  beyond  suspicion  the  nature  of  that  change  which  he  medi- 
tated. *  *  *  Some  popular  instructions  were  either  published 
(before  this)  or  sanctioned  by  royal  authority,  which,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  points  only,  breathed  the  spirit  of  Lutheran- 
ism. Of  this,  no  one  at  all  conversant  with  the  subject  can  for  a 
moment  doubt,  who  examines  with  attention  the  contents  of  what 
were  at  that  time  denominated  The  Bishop's  Book  and  The  King's 
Book,  the  two  most  important  publications  of  the  day." — p.  195. 

2  Note  from  Laurence.  "  After  the  commencement  of  our  Reformation, 
Melanchthon  was  repeatedly  pressed  personally  to  assist  in  completing  it,  both 
in  Henry's  and  Edward's  reign.  In  a  letter  dated  March,  1534,  he  says 
'  Ego  jam  alteris  Uteris  in  Angliam  vocor.'  Ep.  p.  717,  and  again  October  of 
the  following  year.  "  Ego  rursus  in  Angliam  non  solum  Uteris  sed  legationi- 
bus  et  vocor  et  exerceor."  Ep.  p.  732.  Ed.  Lond.,  1642.  The  cause,  how- 
ever, why  he  did  not  come  then,  as  at  first  he  intended  (for  the  elector  of 
Saxony  had  consented  to  his  journey,  and  I^uther  was  anxious  for  it),  he  ex- 
plains in  another  letter  to  Camerarius  :  "  Anglicct  profectionis  cura  liberatus 
sum.  Postquam  enim  tragici  casus  in  Anglia  acciderunt,  magna  consiliorum 
mutatio  secuta  est.  Posterior  regina  (viz.,  Anne  Boleyn),  magis  accusata  quam 
convicta  adulterii,  ultimo  supplicio  affecta  est."  Epist.,  lib.  IV  ,  187.  In  1538 
he  was  again  solicited.  During  the  short  reign  of  Edward,  solicitations  of  a 
similar  nature  appear  to  have  been  frequent."     Laurence,  pp.  195-99. 


1 8  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

In  speaking  of  a  short  code  of  doctrines,  which^  had  been  drawn 
up  long  before  the  death  of  Henry,  the  Archbishop  says  : 

"  Nor  is  complete  originality  even  here  to  be  met  with  :  the  sen- 
timent and  many  of  the  very  expressions  thus  borrowed,  being  them- 
selves evidently  derived  from  another  source,  The  Confession  of 
Augsburgy 

"The  offices  of  our  Church  (after  Edward  had  ascended  the 
throne)  were  completely  reformed  (which  before  had  been  but 
^SirUdiWy  Oii\.emY>i&(y),  after  the  temperate  System  of  Luther,  *  *  * 
nor  were  any  alterations  of  importance,  one  point  alone  excepted, 
made  at  their  subsequent  revision.  At  the  same  period  also,  the 
first  book  of  Homilies  was  composed,  which,  although  equally 
Lutheran,  *  *  *  has  remained  without  the  slightest  emenda- 
tion to  the  present  day^  *  *  *  Cranmer,  who  had  never  con- 
cealed the  bias  of  his  sentiments,  now  more  openly  and  generally 
avowed  them.  He  translated  a  Lutheran  catechism  (1547)* 
*  *  *  dedicated  it  to  the  King  and  recommended  it  in  the 
strongest  terms.  *  *  *  The  opinions  of  the  Primate  (Cranmer) 
were  at  that  time  perfectly  Lutheran,  and  although  he  afterward 
changed  them  in  one  single  point ;  in  other  respects,  they  remained 
unaltered." — p.  17. 

"As  little  reason  is  there  to  question  his  ability,  as  his  personal 
influence,  his  personal  influence  as  his  attachment  to  Lutheranism. 
This  latter  point  seems  beyond  all  controversy." — p. 2 4. 

"On  the  whole,  therefore,  the  principles  upon  which  our  Refor- 
mation was  conducted,  ought  not  to  remain  in  doubt.  With  these 
the  mind  of  him  to  whom  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  the  salutary 
measure,  was  deeply  impressed,  and  in  conformity  with  them  was 
our  Liturgy  drawn  up  and  the  first  book  of  our  Homilies,  all  that 
were  at  that  time  composed." 

"That  our  Articles  were  in  general, /6'//;/r/(?(/  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciples, I  shall  in  the  next  place  endeavor  to  prove." 

"  Our  Reformers,  indeed,  had  they  been  so  disposed,  might  have 
turned  their  attention  to  the  novel  establishment  of  Geneva,  which 
Calvin  had  just  succeeded  in  forming  according  to  his  wishes,  might 
have  imitated  his  singular  institutions  and  inculcated  its  peculiar 
doctrines,  but  this  they  declined,  viewing  it  perhaps  as  a   faint 

3  This  was  published  in  1536,  under  the  title  of  "Articles  Devised  by 
the  King's  Highest  Majesty,  to  establish  Christian  Quietness  and  Unity 
among  us,  and  to  avoid  Contentious  Opinions,  which  Articles  be  also  approved 
by  the  Consent  and  Determination  of  the  whole  Clergy  of  this  Realm."  For 
further  information,  see  Collier,  Eccles.  Hist.  II.  122  fol.  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref. 
I.  Add,  N.,  Fuller,  C.  H.  XVI.  B.  V.  93. 

4  It  was  a  Catechism  which  Justus  Jonas  had  translated  out  of  Dutchin  to 
Latin,  and  which  was  taught  at  Nurnberg,  and  fust  published  in  1533. 


DR.  morris'  address.  I9 

luminary.  *  *  *  This  they  might  have  done,  but  tliey  rather 
chose  to  give  reputation  to  their  oi)inions  and  stability  to  their  sys- 
tem by  adopting  *  *  *  Lutheran  sentiments  and  expressing 
themselves  in  Lutheran  language. '" — p.  25. 

The  Archbishop  begins  his  second  sermon  in  these  words : 

"  On  a  former  occasion  I  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  estab- 
lished doctrines  of  our  Church,  from  the  commencement  of  the 
Reformation  to  the  period  when  our  Articles  first  appeared,  were 
chiefly  Ltttheran;  to  point  out  that  the  original  plan  was  ultimately 
adhered  to,  and  that  in  the  composition  of  our  national  creed,  a 
general  conformity  with  the  same  principles  was  scrupulously  ob- 
served, will  be  the  object  of  the  present  lecture." — p.  29. 

"At  the  commencement  of  Edward's  reign,  it  appears  that 
Melanchthon  was  consulted  upon  this  interesting  subject.  He  was 
then  alone  at  the  head  of  the  Lutherans,  universally  respected  as  the 
head  of  their  much  applauded  Confession." — p.  36. 

There  was  some  delay  in  the  completion  of  the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles,  owing  to  various  causes,  and  the  Archbishop  continues: 

"Among  other  reasons  which  may  be  assigned  for  this  delay,  is  it 
not  possible  that  one  might  have  been  the  hope  of  obtaining  the 
valuable  assistance  of  Melanchthon,  who  was  repeatedly,  in  Edward's 
as  well  as  in  Henry's  reign,  invited  to  fix  his  residence  in  this  coun- 
try ?"_p.  39. 

"If  it  be  too  much  to  conjecture  that  the  delay  was  not  imputa- 
ble to  the  wish  of  submitting  them  to  his  personal  inspection,  and 
improving  them  by  his  consummate  wisdom,  the  coincidence  never- 
theless of  the  time,  during  which  they  were  postponed,  with  that  of 
his  much  hoped  for  arrival  here,  cannot  altogether  escape  observa- 
tion."^ 

"  Many  of  the  argumentations  upon  points  of  doctrine  at  the  same 


5  In  addition  to  the  quotations  from  Melanchlhon's  letters  given  above, 
we  may  add  what  he  states  to  Camerarius,  in  September,  1535  :  "Ab  Anglis 
bis  vocatus  sum,  sed  expecto  tertias  literas." — Epist.,  p.  722.  And  again, 
in  April  i536 :  "  Et  sic  me  Angli  exercent,  vix  ut  respirare  liceat."  Id.,  7, 
738.  This  was  when  he  was  holding  almost  daily  conference  with  the  English 
ambassadors  in  Wittenberg. 

For  an  account  of  his  relations  with  the  English,  see  Cardwell's  Preface  to 
the  Liturgy  of  Edward  VI.,  p.  IV.,  note  b. 

It  is  interesting  to  know  that  he  earnestly  exhorted  Cranmer  to  attempt  an 
extension  of  the  benefit  beyond  the  confines  of  the  English  Church,  to  form  a 
creed  adapted  to  the  Christian  world  at  large.  The  Confession  which  he  had 
himself  drawn  up,  would,  he  conceived,  prove  something  of  this  description. 
See  his  correspondence  with  Cranmer  in  Notes  on  Sermon  II.  of  Archb. 
Laurence. 


20  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

time  introduced,  were  not  only  of  a  Luthc7-an  tendency,  but  couched 
in  the  very  expressions  of  the  Lutheran  Creeds 

"Considering  them,  therefore,  even  in  their  rude  outline,  but 
more  particularly  in  their  perfect  state,  we  discover,  that,  in  various 
parts  of  their  composition,  Cranmer  studiously  kept  in  view  that 
boast  of  Germany  and  pride  of  the  Reformation,  The  Confession 
of  Augsburg^ 

"If  we,  then,  duly  weigh  the  facts  \vhich  have  been  stated,  and 
the  consequences  which  seem  to  result  from  them,  we  shall  not,  per- 
haps, be  at  a  loss  to  determine  from  what  quarter  we  are  likely  to 
collect  the  best  materials  for  illustrating  the  Articles  of  our  Church. 
We  perceive  that  in  the  first  compilation,  many  prominent  passages 
were  taken  from  the  Augsburg  and  in  the  second  place  from  the 
Wurtemberg  Confession.^  *  *  *  These  were  the  Creeds  of 
the  Lutherans." — p.  46. 

"  It  may  then,  perhaps,  appear  as  well  from  internal  as  external 
evidence,  whence  Cranmer  derived  the  principles  of  our  national 
Creed.  *  *  *  It  may  appear,  that /rt*;// M^Z?////^r«;«i-,  who  had 
been  his  masters  in  theology,  he  had  learned  *  *  *  almost 
everything  which  he  deemed  great  and  good  in  reformation." — p.  52. 

With  regard  to  the  present  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
the  Archbishop  says  : 

"In  the  year  1543,  Melanchthon  and  Bucer  drew  up  a  Re- 
formed Liturgy  *  *  *  fQj-  |-|-,g  ^se  of  the  Archbishoprick  of  Co- 
logne. From  this  work  the  occasional  services  of  our  own  Church, 
where  they  vary  from  the  ancient  forms,  seejn  principally  to  have 
been  derived.  It  was  not  however,  itself  original,  but  in  a  great  de- 
gree borrowed  from  a  Liturgy  established  at  Norimberg.  *  *  * 
All  our  offices  bear  evident  marks  of  having  been  partly  taken  from 
this  work.  *  *  *  Xn  our  Baptismal  service,  the  resemblance 
between  the  two  productions  is  particularly  striking." — p.  144. 
-Proctor,  in  his  History  of  the  Book  of  Comman  Prayer,  London, 
1870,  p.  41,  thus  speaks : 

"  Of  all  the  foreigners  who  were  engaged  in  the  work  of  Refor- 
mation, Melanchthon  had  the  greatest  influence  both  in  the  general 
reformation  of  the  English  Church,  and  in  the  composition  of  the 

6  This  Confessio  Wurtembergica  was  drawn  up  by  Brentius,  in  the  name  of 
his  Prince,  Duke  Christopher,  who  had  resolved  to  send  delegates  to  the 
Council  of  Trent.  The  Emperor  had  invited  the  Protestant  States  to  send  dele- 
gates, promising  them  full  protection.  Brentius  prepared  the  Confession  for 
that  Council  as  Melanchthon  had  drawn  up  the  Confessio  Saxonica  for  the 
same  purpose.  Brentius'  was  approved  by  a  commission  of  ten  Swabian 
divines  and  by  the  city  of  Strasburg.  It  was  also  approved  at  Wittenberg  as 
agreeing  with  Melanchthon's.     Schaff^s  Creeds,  etc.,  I.,  341. 


DR.  MORRIS     ADDRESS.  21 

English  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  where  it  differed  from  the  me- 
diaeval Service  Books." 

"  Melanchthon  was  repeatedly  invited  into  England,  and  it  seems 
probable  that  his  opinion,  supported  by  his  character  and  learning, 
had  great  influence  on  Cranmer's  mind.  As  early  as  March,  1534, 
he  had  been  invited  more  than  once  ;  so  that  the  attention  of  Henry 
VIII.  and  Cranmer  had  been  turned  towards  him  before  they  pro- 
ceeded to  any  doctrinal  reformation.  The  formularies  of  faith  which 
were  put  forth  in  the  reign  of  Henry,  are  supposed  to  have  origin- 
ated in  his  advice.  On  the  death  of  Bucer  (Feb.  28,  155 1)..  the 
professorship  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge  was  offered  to  Melanchthon, 
and  after  many  letters  he  was  at  last  formally  appointed  (May,  1553). 
It  is,  perhaps,  needless  to  add  that  he  never  came  to  England." 


"The  first  book  was  largely  indebted  to  Luther,  who  had  com- 
posed a  form  of  service  in  1533,  for  the  use  of  Brandenburg  and 
Nurnberg.  This  was  taken  by  Melanchthon  and  Bucer  as  their 
model,  when  they  Avere  invited  (1543),  by  Hermann,  Prince  Arch- 
bishop of  Cologne,  to  draw  up  a  Scriptural  form  of  doctrine  and 
worship  for  his  subjects.  This  book  contained  '  Directions  for  the 
public  services  and  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  with  forms  of 
prayer  and  a  litany.'  *  *  *  Xhe  Litany  presents  many  strik- 
ing affinities  with  the  amended  English  Litany  of  1544.  The  ex- 
hortations in  the  Communion  Service  and  portions  of  the  Baptismal 
Services,  are  mainly  due  to  this  hook,  through  which  the  influence 
of  Luther  may  be  traced  in  our  Prayer  Book.     *     *     * 

"They  (the  Thirteen  Articles  of  1538)  not  only  indicate  the  dis- 
position of  our  leading  Reformers  to  acquiesce  in  the  dogmatic  state- 
ments which  had  been  put  forward  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but 
have  also  a  prospective  bearing  of  still  more  importance,  as  in  many 
ways,  the  groundwork  of  articles  now  in  use.  No  one  can  deny 
that  the  compilers  of  the  Forty- Two  Articles  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
VI.  drew  largely  from  the  Lutheran  formulary  of  1530." — Lbid.,  61.'* 

"In  the  first  year  of  the  new  reign  (1548),  he  (Cranmer)  had 
'set  forth  '  an  English  Catechism  of  a  distinctly  Lutheran  stamp, 
indeed  originally  composed  in  German  and  translated  into  Latin, 

7  For  a  fuller  account  of  the  negotiation  with  Melanchthon  to  go  to  Eng- 
land, see  Hardwick's  Articles  of  Religion,  1S59,  p.  53,  Stiype,  Eccles.  Mem., 
I.,  225-98. 

8  For  a  parallel  between  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  XIII.  Articles 
here  spoken  of,  see  Hardwick,  pp.  62seq.;and  for  a  parallel  between  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Forty-Two  Articles  of  1553,  see  Appendix  III., 
Hardwick  ;  and  for  a  parallel  between  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles,  as  finally  agreed  upon  in  1 571,  see  Annotated  Prayer  Book. 


22  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

by  Justus  Jonas,  the  Elder,  one  of  Luther's  bosom  friends." — Ibid., 
68. 

"  With  reference  more  particularly  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism, 
the  baptismal  office  of  our  own  Reformers  was  derived  in  no  small 
measure  from  Luther's  Taufbiichlein,  itself  the  offspring  and  reflex- 
ion of  far  older  manuals." — Ibid.,  95. 

Hardwick  in  Articles  of  Religion,  Cambridge,  1859,  p.  13, 
says  : 

"That  Confession  (the  Augsburg)  is  most  intimately  connected 
with  the  progress  of  the  English  Reformation  ;  and  besides  the  in- 
fluence which  it  cannot  fail  to  have  exerted  by  its  rapid  circula- 
tion in  our  country,  //  contributed  directly  in  a  large  degree,  to  the 
construction  of  the  public  formularies  of  Faith  put  forward  by  the 
Church  of  England.  The  XIIL  Articles,  drawn  up,  as  we  shall  see, 
in  1538,  were  based  almost  entirely  on  the  language  of  the  great 
Germanic  Confession,  while  a  similar  expression  of  respect  is  no 
less  manifest  in  the  Articles  of  Edward  VL,  and  consequently  in 
that  series  which  is  binding  now  upon  the  conscience  of  the  Eng- 
lish Clergy." 

"A  perception  of  this  common  basis  in  religious  matters,  aided 
by  strong  reasons  of  diplomacy,  suggested  the  commencement  of 
negotiations  with  the  '  princes  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,'  as 
early  as  the  year  1535.  The  first  English  Envoy  sent  among  them 
was  Robert  Barnes,  the  victim,  only  five  years  later,  of  his  predilec- 
tion for  the  new  opinions,  etc." — Ibid.,  53. 

"  But  while  (King)  Henry  was  thus  faltering  on  the  subject  of 
communion  with  the  German  League,  a  conference  had  been  opened 
on  the  spot  between  the  English  delegates  and  a  committee  of 
Lutheran  theologians.  Luther  himself  was  a  party  to  it  from  the 
first  and  Melanchthon  came  soon  afterwards  (January  15,  1536). 
The  place  of  meeting  was  at  Wittenberg  in  the  house  of  Pontanus 
(Briick),  the  senior  chancellor  of  Saxony,  where  Fox  dilated  on  the 
Lutheran  tendencies  of  England,  and  more  especially  of  his  royal 
master. ' ' '•'  — Ibid.  5  5 . 

"Afterwards  Henry  begged  the  'Princes  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion ' '  to  send  to  England  a  legation  of  divines  (including  his  peculiar 
favorite  Melanchthon)  to  confer  on  the  disputed  points  with  a  com- 
mittee of  English  theologians.  *  *  The  whole  course  of  the 
discussion  was  apparently  determined  by  the  plan  and  order  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession." — Ibid.  56-7. 

9  See  Seckendorf  Comment,  de  Lutheranismo,  Lib.  Ill  ,  §  xxxix.,  for  an  ac- 
count of  certain  articles  of  religion  which  were  drawn  up  by  the  mediating 
party  in  1535  and  '36.  Of  those,  one  article  has  reference  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  is  merely  an  expanded  version  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 


DR.  MORRIS    ADDRESS.  23 

"The  result  of  the  conference  with  the  Germans  was  a  'boke' 
(book)  which  is  manifestly  founded  on  the  Confession  of  Augsburg, 
often  followed  it  very  closely.  *  *  *  The  article  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  word  for  word  the  same." — Ibid.  60. 

Short,  in  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  London,  1869,  p. 
165,  says: 

"  He  (Melanchthon")  appears  to  have  been  consulted  in  1535  con- 
cerning the  Articles  which  were  published  during  the  next  year ; 
and  the  definition  of  7V/i'///fra//<?«  there  given  is  probably  derived 
from  the  Loci  Communes  of  this  author :  in  the  whole  of  those 
articles  the  ideas  and  language  of  the  Lutheran  divines  have  been 
closely  followed.  Many  of  the  Forty-Two  Articles  owe  their  origin 
to  the  same  source,  and  even  those  which  cannot  be  traced  with 
certainty,  exhibit  a  correspondence  with  the  general  opinion  of 
the  German  divines.''  • 

"At  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation  in  England,  our  re- 
formers naturally  cast  their  eyes  on  two  standards  of  faith,  on  that 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  that  of  the  Lutheran  churches,  which 
had  already  discarded  the  errors  of  the  papal  court.  The  rule, 
then,  which  sound  reason  would  seem  to  dictate  is,  that  those  points 
wherein  the  Church  of  England  found  it  necessary  to  differ  from 
that  of  Rome,  it  should  refer  to  the  opinions  of  the  newly  estab- 
lished churches  and  follow  them  as  far  as  they  were  consistent  with 
Scripture ;  and  where  that  which  was  taught  by  the  Lutherans  ap- 
peared to  be  questionable,  the  Church  of  England  should  either 
borrow  the  expression  of  its  opinions  from  some  other  reformed 
church,  or  construct  its  own  articles  directly  from  the  word  of  God. 
In  our  articles  are  contained  the  great  truths  of  Christianity  "^  * 
there  are  many  which  are  derived  from  the  Lutheran  Church.  *  * 
In  our  public  services  the  greater  part  of  the  Common  Prayer  Book 
is  taken  from  the  Roman  Ritual,  and  some  portions  are  borrowed 
from  the  Lutheran  Church,  or  rather  drawn  up  in  imitation  of 
them." 

"About  the  same  time  Cranmer  (15 48)  put  forth  his  Catechism. 
This  work  was  translated  from  a  German  Catechism  used  in  Nurem- 
berg, through  the  medium  of  a  Latin  version  made  by  Justus  Jonas. 
— Ibid.  142. 

"In  1535,  Fox,  Heath  and  Barnes  were  sent  ambassadors  to 
Smalcalde,  where  proposals  were  made  to  them  by  the  Protestant 
Princes,  that  the  King  should  approve  the  Confession  of  Augsburg." 
— Ibid.  no. 

'■Whatever  use  he  (Cranmer,  1536)  might  have  made  of  the  Hel- 
vetic Confession  in  forming  his  own  opinions,  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  introduced  it  into  tiie  work  in  which  he  was  engaged  (pre- 
paring the  Forty-Two  Articles),  but  with  regard  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  (1530,  printed  1531,  and    republished   with   alteration 


24  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

1540),  there  is  not  only  a  general  agreement  in  doctrine,  but  in 
many  places  the  very  words  of  the  one  are  transferred  into  the 
other."— /(^/r/  268.10 

"It  appears  that  he  (Archbishop  Parker  of  Canterbury,  1559) 
had  himself  been  recasting  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  King  Edward 
*  *  and  that  he  added  to  the  Articles,  which  had  been  mainly 
drawn  from  the  earlier  Lutheran  Creeds,  some  new  clauses  obtained 
from  the  more  recent  confession  of  Wurtemberg." — Cardwell,  Syn- 
odalia,  Oxford,  1842,  2  vols.,  Vol.  I.  /.  35. 

"  These  Articles,  forty-two  in  number,  the  first  that  were  con- 
structed by  the  Church  of  England,  on  the  principles  of  the  refor- 
mation, were  indebted  to  the  clear  theological  distinctions  of  Me- 
lanchthon  and  other  reformers  of  Germany,  and  derived  more  es- 
pecially from  the  Augsburg  Confession." — Ibid.,  Vol.,  I.  i. 

Bishop  Bull,  in  his  "Apology  for  the  Harmony  and  its  Author," 
bound  with  his  "  Examen  Censurae,"  pp.  292  seq.,  Oxford,  1844, 
says  in  reply  to  Dr.  TuUy : 

"  Dr.  TuUy  now  hastens  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  where,  in 
the  first  place,  he  finds  fault  with  me  because  I  called  that  the  great- 
est of  all  the  Reformed  Confessions,  not  excepting  even  our  own 
Anglican  one.  *  *  j  only  said  the  same  thing  that  many  learned 
men  both  of  our  own  and  foreign  countries  have  said  before  me, 
and  who  also  highly  honored  our  Church.  Now  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  deservedly  called  the  greatest,  for  more  than  one  reason. 
In  the  first  place  (not  to  say  anything  of  its  most  excellent  and 
learned  principal  author,  Philip  Melanchthon),  it  was  the  first  of  all 
Confessions.  Next,  when  it  was  published,  it  was  approved  of  by 
the  consent  of  almost  all,  if  not  of  all,  the  Reformed  Churches, 
Universities  and  Doctors.  Lastly,  it  is  still  received  and  held  in 
certain  kingdoms  and  great  principalities  and  free  States.  The 
Doctor,  moreover,  is  offended,  because  I  said  that  the  heads  of  our 
Church  had  followed  and  imitated  this  Confession.  But  what  can 
be  clearer  than  this  ?  The  first  article  of  our  Confession  is  taken 
almost  word  for  word  from  the  first  of  the  Augsburg.  Our  second 
is  clearly  copied  from  the  third  of  Augsburg.  Also  the  sixteenth  in 
ours  *  *  openly  imitates,  towards  the  end,  the  anathemas  of 
the  eleventh  in  the  Augsburg,  as  our  twenty-fifth  does  the  thir- 
teenth in  the  Augsburg.  Again,  in  our  homilies,  how  often  must  the 
attentive  reader  who  is  acquainted  with  Melanchthon's  writings,  hear 
him  speaking?  Add  to  which  *  *  that  Hooper  of  blessed 
memory  *  '^  was  in  the  habit  of  copying  long  passages  from 
Melanchthon's  writings,  almost  word  for  word." 

Bishop  Bull,  in  his  Harmonia  Apostolica,  Oxford,  1842,  pp. 

10  For  these  Forty-Two  Articles  in  Latin  and  English,  and  in  parallel  columns 
with  the  Elizabethan  Articles,  see  Hardwick's  Appendix,  III.,  pp.  277-333. 


DR.  morris'  essay.  2$ 

197  seq.,  says,  "This  is  the  same  as  is  meant  in  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg,  which  as  it  is  the  most  noble  and  ancient  of  all  the  Re- 
formed Churches,  so  both  here  and  in  other  places,  the  heads  of 
our  Church  have  followed  it,  that  whoever  is  ignorant  of  it  can 
scarcely  conceive  the  true  meaning  of  our  articles." 

Bp.  Whittingham,  of  Maryland,  in  the  charge  to  his  clergy,  1849, 
says,  "  that  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  their  (the  Thirty-Nine 
Articles)  connection  is  of  a  nature  the  most  intimate  and  direct, 
substantiable  by  superabundant  evidence,  both  internal  and  circum- 
stantial. In  more  than  one  respect,  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 
the  source  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England 
and  America — their  prototype  in  form,  their  model  in  doctrine, 
and  the  very  foundation  of  many  of  their  expressions  ;  while  others 
are  drawn  from  its  derivative  expositions  and  repetitions." 

It  is  not  inappropriate  to  introduce  the  testimony  of  another  dis- 
tinguished witness,  not  of  the  Church  of  England  : 

"The  Thirty-Nine  Articles  were  established  as  the  law  of  the 
land  under  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  15  71.  *  *  *  They  are  based  on 
German  Confessions  of  faith.  Very  probably  the  thirteen  which 
were  found  among  Cranmer's  papers  were  the  result  of  Conferences 
between  German  and  English  theologians,  begun  in  Wittenberg, 
1533,  and  continued  in  London  in  153S,  who  aimed  at  a  union  of 
both  churches.  These  thirteen  closely  follow  the  order  of  the  first 
seventeen  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  are  copied 
nearly  word  for  word." — Hcrzog's  Encyclop.,  Vol.  I.,  325,  which 
see  also  for  the  differences  between  the  whole  Thirty-Nine  Articles 
and  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

Schaff,  in  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I.  623,  says: 

"The  Edwardine  Articles  were  based  in  part,  as  already  ob- 
served, upon  a  previous  draft  of  Thirteen  Articles,  which  was  the 
joint  product  of  German  and  English  divines,  and  based  upon  the 
doctrinal  Articles  of.  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Some  passages 
were  transferred  verbatim  from  the  Lutheran  document  to  the  Tiiir- 
teen  Articles,  and  from  these  to  the  Eorty-Two  (1553),  and  were 
retained  in  the  Elizabethan  revision  (1563  and  1571).  This  will 
appear  from  the  following  comparison.  The  corresponding  words 
are  printed  in  Italics." 

After  giving  the  comparison  in  parallel  columns,  Schaff  thus  con- 
cludes : 

"  Besides  these  passages,  there  is  a  close  resemblance  in  thought, 
though  not  in  language,  in  the  statements  of  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
3 


26  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

nal  sin  and  of  the  possibility  of  falling  after  justification.  Several 
of  the  Edwardine  Articles  *  *  *  were  suggested  by  Article 
Seventeen  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  is  directed  against 
the  Anabaptists." 

And  finally,  one  extract  from  one  of  our  own  writers : 

"As  to  the  Twenty-Five  Articles,  which  embody  the  acknowl- 
edged doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Societies,  they  are  in  language 
and  substance  so  nearly  identical  with  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of 
the  Church  of  England,  that  they  must  be  traced  through  them  to 
the  same  source  They  are  only  remoter  issues  from  the  same  Lu- 
theran fountain." 

"It  is,  therefore,  with  justice  that  the  Lutheran  Church  takes  to 
herself  the  high  appellation  of  The  Mother  of  Protestants.'''' — Seiss, 
Eccles.  Luth.,  p.  124. 

Thus,  the  Lutheran  Origin  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  has  been 
fully  illustrated.  Many  more  extracts  from  the  writings  of  great 
divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  might  have  been  given,  but  they 
only  reiterate  and  confirm  what  the  earlier  writers  have  said,  and, 
therefore,  it  is  deemed  superfluous  to  insert  them. 

The  second  paper  was  then  read. 


THE  RELATIONS  OF  THIi  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  TO 
THE  DENOMINATIONS  AROUND  US. 

An  Essay  by  Charles  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Norton  Professor 
of  Systematic  Theology  and  Ecclesiastical  Polity  in  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Theological  Seminary,  at  Philadelphia. 

I.    THE   DENOMINATIONS   AROUND    US. 

"The  relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the  denominations 
around  us,"  very  naturally  lead  us  to  ask,  who,  and  what,  and  why, 
are  the  denominations  around  us  ? 

The  term  Denoininaiions. 
A  denomination,  as  we  use  the  term,  is,  in  the  sphere  of  Religion, 
a  class  or  collection  of  individuals,  called  by  the  same  name  ;  a 
body  of  persons  who  have  separated,  or  are  separate  from  others,  in 
virtue  of  their  holding  in  common  some  special  doctrine,  or  set  of 
doctrines,  or  government,  or  usage,  or  discipline.  The  word, 
though  it  is  in  this  sense  the  resort,  if  not  the  outgrowth  of  an  eva- 
sive courtesy,  is  preferable  to  the  terms  sect,  or  schism — which  are  its 
nearest  historical  equivalents — because  in  itself  it  simply  marks  a 
fact,  without  expressing  or  insinuating  an  unfavorable  judgment. 
It  is  preferable  in  discussion  to  the  word  "  Church,"  for  it  does  not 
involve  a  judgment.  In  a  word,  it  is  a  colorless  objective  term  ex- 
pressing the  thing  we  mean,  without  committing  us  to  an  opinion 
of  it. 

Who  and  What  are  the  Denominations  around  us  ? 
The  denominations  around  us  are  real  and  distinct  organizations, 
with  distinct  names,  creeds,  constitutions,  books  of  worship,  terms  of 
admission  to  the  ministry,  terms  and  tests  of  membership,  and  a 
discipline;  with  a  distinct  religious  literature,  publishing  houses,  the- 
ological schools  and  missions.  As  organizations  they  are  as  really 
distinct  as  states,  or  nations,  or  associations.  The  intense  partisan- 
ship which  builds  up  walls,  and  the  flabby  unionism  which  pretends 
to  disregard  them,  seem  at  first  in  hopeless  dis-harmony — but  they 

(27) 


28  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

really  are  part  of  one  idea.  When  men  are  to  be  kept  in,  Denom- 
inationalism  magnifies  its  walls;  when  men  are  to  be  let  in,  it  makes 
them  very  low — or  has  abundant  openings  in  them. 

The  denominations  around  us  cover  nearly  every  leading  form 
of  Christianity  and  of  its  distortions,  and  a  number  of  its  siiiallest 
bodies,  parasites,  and  parasites  of  parasites.  About  thirty  years  ago 
Rev.  E.  N.  Kirk  I  said  "In  the  Western  Reserve,"  "that  New 
England  of  the  West,"  "there  are  forty-one  sects;  all  professing  to 
beheve  the  Bible."  If  our  land  were  searched  through  all  its  bor- 
ders, the  number  of  denorpinations  would  be  seen  to  be  simply 
appalling — some  in  vigorous  life,  some'  rising,  some  dying  out, 
some  dead  and  dusty  but  not  swept  out  of  sight,  some  fossilized 
into  a  sort  of  stony  existence,  others  like  soap-bubbles  expanding  in 
glittering  swiftness  toward  their  bursting. 

Classijicaiion :  Historical. 
When  we  ask.  What  they  are  ?  and  Whence  they  came  ?  Why  they 
are  around  us  ?  we  shall  find  that  the  history  of  their  origin  is  largely 
the  explanation  of  it.  With  respect  to  their  purely  historical  basis, 
their  genesis  and  rise  as  particular  churches,  the  great  bodies  and 
tendencies  into  which  Christendom  is  divided  may  be  thus  arranged  : 

I.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  takes  her  name  from  her  identi- 
fication with  herself  of  the  Catholic  Church  proper,  as  the  Church 
of  the  Redeemed,  out  of  which  there  is  no  salvation.  She  makes 
the  Church  Catholic  an  organization  which  centres  in  the  See  of 
Rome,  with  an  infallible  Pope  at  its  head,  and  rests  on  the  theory 
that  Peter  was  Primate  of  the  Apostles ;  that  at  the  end  of  his  life 
he  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  the  primacy  and  official  infalli- 
bility which  belonged  to  him  as  an  apostle,  were  transferred  to  his 
successors  as  bishops. 

II.  The  Greek  Orthodox  Church  marks  in  its  name  Greek,  the  sepa- 
ration from  the  Roman  in  the  divided  empire,  and  adds  "Ortho- 
dox" to  assert  its  claim  to  the  possession  of  the  pure  faith.  It  is 
strongly  anti-papal  without  being  Protestant. 

III.  The  Evangelical  Church,  popularly  called  the  Lutheran 
Church,  whose  centre  is  the  Gospel ;  Gospel  Grace  against  Legalism  ; 
Gospel  Sufficiency  over  against  Traditionalism,  the  Abuse  of  Reason 
and  Fanaticism ;  and  Gospel  Unity  in  F"aith  and  Sacraments  over 


^Sermon  in  behalf  of  Am.  H.  Miss.  Soc,  May,  i{ 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  29 

against  the  separatism  of  sect,  and   the  spurious  Unionism  of  com- 
promise and  of  ignored  truth. 

IV.  The  Calvinistic- Reformed  Church  of  the  Continent,  consid- 
ered in  its  unity.  It  embraces  especially  the  German,  Dutch  and 
French  Churches,  and  is  represented  in  our  land  mainly  by  the 
descendants  of  immigrants  of  its  original  nationalities. 

V.  ^\\'e.  Eclectic  Protestant  ox  Anglican  Church,  the  Church  of 
England,  her  sisters  in  Scotland  and  Ireland,  her  daughter  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  and  now  her  grand-daughter  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church. 

VI.  The  great  conflicting  bodies  which  grew  out  o{  governmental 
divergences  from  the  Established  Church  of  England  and  Scotland, 
or  from  each  other.  The  Presbyterians  and  Independents  arose  first 
from  the  assertion  of  the  divine  right  of  Church  government 
opposed  to  the  Prelatical,  and  then  divided  from  each  other,  on  the 
assertion  on  the  one  side  that  this  government  of  divine  right  is  the 
Presbyterian,  on  the  other  that  it  is  Independent  and  Congregational. 
Presbyterianism  overcame  Episcopacy,  and  till  1797  was  scarcely 
troubled  with  Independency  in  Scotland;  but  Independency  proved 
the  mightier  movement  in  England.  It  vanquished  Presbyterianism 
in  their  earlier  battles  ;  it  sent  forth  its  colonists  of  flint  and  steel  to 
New  England ;  it  stamped  itself  through  them  and  their  descendants 
on  the  institutions  and  thinking  of  our  New  World.  It  evolved  the 
Yankee  race,  and  produced  a  brain  which  claimed  to  be  a  universal 
solvent.  When  Socinianism  swallowed  up  English  Presbyterianism, 
Independency  in  the  Congregational  and  Baptist  Churches  gave 
shelter  to  the  few  who  still  held  the  old  faith.  But  in  the  mystery 
of  history.  New  England's  Independency  has  repeated  the  sorrowful 
experience  of  Old  England's  Presbyterianism — perhaps  because  that 
patent  universal  cerebral  solvent,  in  which  it  trusts,  has  sometimes 
had  pearls  dropped  into  it,  which  are  better  undissolved. 

VII.  The  divergent  bodies  which  added  to  the  Independent  view 
of  Church  government,  peculiar  views  of  the  mode  and  subject  of 
Baptism — the  Baptists  of  various  Schools,  Particular  or  Calvinistic. 
General  or  Arminian.  The  Mcnnonites  hold  the  Baptist  view  of  the 
subjects  of  Baptism,  but  reject  immersion  as  its  necessary  mode. 

VIII.  Under  the  general  spirit  and  modes  of  Pietism  ;  contemplat- 
ing association  for  religious  ends  within  the  Established  Church  ; 
dividing  from  the  beginning  on  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  ;  under  the 
conflicting  leadership  of  Whitefield  and  Wesley,  there  came  forth  in 


30  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  Church  of  England  a  divergence  in  spirit,  ripening  into  a  divi- 
sion in  fact,  marked  by  the  desire  of  larger  freedom  in  doctrine 
and  worship,  more  positive  emphasis  of  the  evangelical  doctrines, 
and  especially  of  the  subjective  elements  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  larger 
play  for  the  emotions  and  the  expression  of  them,  more  complete 
adaptation  to  the  supposed  wants  of  the  masses  and  their  peculiar- 
ities, and  stricter  disciphne  in  a  compact  organization.  This  diver- 
gence has  matured  into  Methodism. 

IX.  Not  large,  but  for  many  reasons  memorable, is  the  body  known 
variously  as  Herrnhulhers,  Brothers  of  the  Unity,  Bohemian  and  Mo- 
ravian Brethren.  The  fragments  of  the  Bohemian  and  Moravian 
Brethren,  left  after  many  a  storm  of  war  and  persecution,  sought  re- 
fuge from  new  dangers,  1720,  and  found  it  under  the  fostering  care 
of  Count  Zinzendorf.  Their  earnest  piety,  their  domestic  virtues, 
blessed  of  God,  gathered  around  their  new  home,  the  village  of 
Herrnhuth.  Preserving  intact  in  their  homes  their  ancient,  simple 
and  pecuhar  modes  and  careful  domestic  discipline,  they  became 
communicants  in  the  neighboring  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  at 
Bertholsdorf.  This  drew  to  them  others,  not  Bohemians  or  Moravians, 
but  who,  regarding  them  as  brethren  in  the  Lutheran  faith,  joined 
them  and  conformed  to  their  peculiar  discipline,  as  calculated  to 
promote  holy  and  happy  living.  The  growth  became  so  great  that 
Herrnhuth  needed  a  pastor  of  its  own,  and  by  the  influence  of  Zin- 
zendorf, Steinhofer,  a  clergyman  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  was  called 
1733.  In  their  original  form  the  Herrnhuthers  were  nominally  an 
Evangelical  Lutheran  congregation,  in  which,  in  conformity  with  the 
liberty  which  the  Lutheran  Church  maintains,  they  claimed  to  pre- 
serve the  ancient  discipline  of  the  Brethren  in  Unity.  So  Zinzen- 
dorf and  the  Herrnhuthers  themselves  define  it.' 

Out  of  this  simple  beginning  Count  Zinzendorf  developed  a  system 
of  marked  peculiarity  in  faith  and  discipline.  The  Moravians  of 
our  day  are  distinguished  by  indeterminateness  on  the  points  of 
doctrine  which  divide  the  Church,  careful  organization,  and  sys- 
tem, discipline  milder  than  the  old,  yet  still  strict,  a  quiet  home- 
life,  simplicity  of  manners,  heroic  devotion  to  missions;  and  have 
made  the  most  effectual  answer  to  the  earlier  charges  against  them, 
by  confessing  what  was  wrong  and  removing  it. 

2y-    X.  Arminianism  has  not,  as  such,  embodied  itself  with  any  force 

i ^ 

2  Biidingsche  Sammhing,  I.,  48,  115. 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  3 1 

into  a  distinct  denomination,  but  it  has  shown  its  power  as  a  ten- 
dency which  has  influenced  or  disturbed  all  denominations.  It  is 
the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Jesuits  as  against  the  Jansenists.  It  was 
originally  characteristic  of  the  High  Church  party,  beginning  with 
the  time  of  Laud  Tone  of  the  charges  against  whom,  in  the  trial  which 
led  to  his  beheading,  was  his  Arminianism)  ;  but  it  is  now  the  gen- 
eral position  of  High,  Low  and  Broad  alike,  with  few  exceptions 
It  is  the  system  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  some  of  the 
Baptist  communions,  and  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians.  It  has 
been  winning  point  after  point  in  the  very  heart  of  nominal  Calvin- 
ism. From  its  early,  cautious,  negative  tendency,  in  which  it  was 
no  more  than  a  gentle  protest  against  the  five  extravagances  of  Cal- 
vinism, it  ran  out,  first  in  the  passionate  development,  which  was 
aided  by  proscription  and  persecution,  and  afterwards,  by  its  essen- 
tial tendencies,  into  Socinianism,  or  became  a  bridge  by  which 
Calvinism  made  a  transition  into  the  same  system. 

XI.  The  Friends  arose  partly  in  reaction  against  the  formalism  of 
the  Church  of  England  and  the  polemical  spirit  of  Puritanism,  and 
partly  in  the  general  spirit  of  religious  enthusiasm  which  marked  the 
period  of  the  great  civil  war.  They  are  now  divided  into  the  Or- 
thodox Friends,  the  Hicksites,  and  the  Primitive  Friends.  The 
worldly  thrift,  the  persistency  of  their  witness  against  the  evils  of 
war  and  slavery,  and  their  humanity,  have  made  the  Friends  an 
important  social  element. 

Denominational  Names. 
To  express  the  characteristic  diversity  in  a  name,  where  diversity 
has  been  so  great  and  complicated,  has  been  no  inconsiderable  tax 
of  ingenuity.  Some  of  the  denominations  take  their  name  from  a 
single  doctrine,  as  Advent,  Unitarian,  Universalist.  Some  reach 
new  names  by  disavowing  all  particular  names,  as  Bible  Christians, 
Church  of  Christ,  Church  of  God ;  some  take  their  names  from 
their  theories  or  modes  of  Church  government,  as  Congregational, 
Episcopal,  Presbyterian.  In  some  cases  the  names  of  leaders  have 
been  fixed  on  churches  or  systems,  as  Arminian,  Calvinists,  Mennon- 
nites,  Wesleyans.  Some  bear  historical  nicknames,  as  Methodists, 
Quakers.  Some  derive  their  name  in  whole  or  part  from  their  origi- 
nal nationality  or  language.  The  term  Reformed  plays  a  large  part 
in  denominational  terminology.  We  have  Baptist  Reformed  ;  the 
Reformed  Church  in  America,  or  Dutch  Reformed  ;  the  Reformed 


32  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Church  in  the  United  States,  or  German  Reformed;  the  Reformed 
Episcopal;  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  (original);  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  (General  Synod) ;  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  (Synod). 
Vve  see  coupled  in  some  of  these  titles,  Reformation  in  the  fifth 
potentiation. 

In  this  single  city  of  Philadelphia,  this  city  of  brotherly  love,  we 
have  around  us  nearly  all  the  leading  forms  of  Protestantism,  Heresy 
and  Sectarianism.  The  mere  display  of  names  is  indeed  in  some 
respects  illusive;  first,  because,  except  as  the  revelation  of  a  danger- 
ous tendency,  many  of  the  sects  are  insignificant  —  the  offspring  of 
ignorance  and  fanaticism,  and  destined  to  speedy  extinction.  Sec- 
ondly, because,  taking  the  great  denominations,  great  in  numbers 
or  clearly  defined  in  principle,  the  points  of  diversity  are  at  their 
root  few.  It  is  the  varied  combinations  which  make  so  great  a  num- 
ber of  sects.  The  Rule  of  Faith  and  how  to  interpret  it,  the  eternal 
decrees  of  God,  the  person  of  Christ,  Justification,  the  internal  na- 
ture of  Word  and  Sacraments,  the  Polity  of  the  Church,  external 
ceremonies,  are  the  grand  points  of  diversity. 

And  yet  the  names  associated  with  peculiarities  and  classes  form  an 
important  basis  of  classification.  So  far  as  a  direct  divine  warrant  for 
any  peculiar  name  is  concerned,  they  are  all  alike ;  for  though  the  name 
be  a  Biblical  one,  it  has  no  divine  warrant  as  the  exclusive  property 
of  a  denomination.  There  can  be  no  divine  warrant  for  applying  a 
divine  name  except  to  a  divine  thing — and  that  a  denomination  as 
such,  is  not.  "Believers,"  "Disciples  of  Christ,"  "Brethren," 
"Friends,"  mark  true  Christians  as  individuals  in  all  denominations. 
"The  Church,"  the  "Church  of  God,"  without  a  plural,  is  the 
Church  Catholic  and  invisible.  The  name  Christian  is  of  human 
origin,  and  is  applied  to  the  individual  disciples,  not  to  the  Church 
even  as  a  whole,  still  less  to  particular  churches.  All  the  particular 
names,  with  their  specific  application,  have  risen  in  history,  and  are 
defensible  only  as  the  history  which  became  the  occasion  of  their 
necessity  is  defensible.  The  most  offensive  and  intensely  sectarian 
of  all  names  are  those  which  are  in  Scripture,  and  mark  the  whole 
Christian  communion  as  such,  but  are  diverted  to  be  the  trade-mark 
of  any  denomination. 

A  name  is  a  claim — and  a  false  name  is  a  stereotyped  lie.  Hence 
the  responsibility  of  assuming  or  tolerating  a  name  is  in  itself  very 
great.     A  name  is  in  itself  a  creed ;  a  man  is  bound  to  what  the 


DR.    KRAUTHS    ESSAY.  33 

name  really  means  which  he  bears,  and  no  amount  of  private  dis- 
avowal neutralizes  the  obligations  and  responsibility  of  it.  While  a 
man  calls  himself  Roman  Catholic,  Methodist  or  Calvinist,  he  binds 
himself  to  be  Roman  Catholic,  Methodist  or  Calvinist,  and  we  are 
bound  to  treat  him  as  such.  If  he  privately  repudiates  the  claim  of 
his  Church  name,  so  much  the  worse  for  his  intelligence  and  sin- 
cerity. 

The  Right  to  Exist. 

And  this  leads  us  to  ask  as  preliminary  to  our  just  relations  to 
them,  on  what  grounds  of  principle  do  the  denominations  around 
us  vindicate  their  right  to  exist  ?  To  some  of  the  sects  this  question 
would  come  like  a  thunderbolt.  They  have  never  raised  it.  They 
never  knew  that  such  a  question  could  be  raised.  In  the  Sectarian 
Declaration  of  Independence,  among  the  certain  inalienable  *rights 
are  sectarian  life,  sectarian  liberty,  and  sectarian  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness. They  may  deny  a  man's  right  to  wear  a  coat  or  a  hat  not 
fashioned  after  the  sacred  pattern  shown  them  in  the  mount  of  their 
private  hallucination,  but  as  to  a  man's  right- to  join  himself  to  any 
sect  he  thinks  good,  or  to  make  another  sect  if  the  existing  sects  do 
not  suit  him,  of  that  they  never  doubted.  In  the  Popery  of  Sect, 
"  Stat  pro  ratione  voluntas  " — their  best  reason  is,  they  wish  it  so. 

Yet  this  question  is  a  great  (juestion.  It  is  the  question.  The 
denomination  which  has  not  raised  it  is  a  self-convicted  sect.  The 
denomination  which  cannot  return  such  an  answer  to  it  as  at  least 
shows  sincere  conviction  that  it  has  such  reasons,  should  be  shunned 
by  all  Christians  who  would  not  have  the  guilt  of  other  men's  sins. 

We  draw  a  line  then  at  once  between  those  denominations  which 
either  give  no  reason  for  their  rightful  existence,  or  a  reason  so 
transparently  false  as  to  defy  credulity;  and  those  on  the  other 
hand  which  have  reasons — reasons  of  such  plausibility  as  to  satisfy 
us  that  thoughtful  men  may  sincerely  hold  them. 

There  is  also  an  obvious  line  to  be  drawn  between  those  com- 
munions which  went  forth  from  Rome,  the  primal  forms  of 
Protestantism  ;  and  those  which  have  arisen  by  division  and  sub- 
division within  Protestantism, — between  the  genera  of  Protestantism 
and  the  species  of  those  genera — between  those  with  whom  Rome 
made  schism,  and  those  which  have  made  schism  in  the  Protestant 
body. 

We  must  also  look  with  very  different  eyes  on  those  bodies  whose 


34  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

historical  record  and  present  acts  are  in  accordance  with  the  official 
principles  on  which  they  rest  their  right  to  exist ;  and  those  which 
desert  the  principles  which  gave  them  name,  creeds  and  position — 
thoi>e  bodies  which  exist  on  one  principle  and  act  on  another, 
which  lengthen  out  their  lives  by  abandoning  what  they  once  con- 
sidered sacred,  ignoring  their  history,  concealing  their  confessed 
doctrines,  or  evading  the  necessary  consequences  of  them,  and  who 
make  their  name  and  their  very  existence  a  fraud, — and  whose  in- 
tensest  hatred  is  inflicted  on  those  who  remind  them  of  their  history, 
and  of  the  doctrines  which  gave  them  their  original  being. 

II.    HISTORY    OF   THE   ORIGINATION   OF  THE   QUESTION  IN  DISCUSSION. 
RISE   OF   DIVISIONS  :    DENOMINATIONALISM   AND   UNIONISM. 

It  may  help  to  shed  light  upon  the  question  we  are  to  discuss,  to 
look  at  the  way  in  which  it  has  risen.  What  are  the  historical 
sources  of  the  laxity  which  has  become  a  characteristic  of  our  time, 
and  especially  of  our  country,  and  with  this  the  sources  of  the  Union- 
ism which  has  attempted  to  cover  over  the  laxity  and  glorify  it?  The 
common  roots  of  both  s' retch  far  and  wide. 

So  tremendous  a  movement  as  the  Reformation  was  inevitably 
attended  by  various  imperfections  and  distortions.  The  need  of 
some  sort  of  reform  was  universally  admitted.  Rome  then  admitted 
it,  and  now  admits  it.  But  the  ultra-conservatism  which  was  rep- 
resented in  the  reformatory  part  of  the  Romish  Church  which  would 
not  break  with  it,  proposed  little  more  than  a  superficial  correction 
of  some  evils,  while  their  real  causes  remained  undisturbed.  Antip- 
odal to  this  there  was  a  radicalism  which  proposed  to  sweep  away 
everything  existent,  and  to  make  a  new  start  from  its  own  inter- 
pretation of  the  letter  of  the  Bible,  ignoring  the  centuries  of  the 
Church's  history.  There  was  fanaticism  which  proposed  in  new 
revelations  to  find  what  it  imagined  the  old  revelation  had  failed  to 
furnish.  The  real  heart  of  the  Reformation  was  with  that  part  of 
the  movement  which  was  conservative  toward  the  good,  radical  to- 
ward the  evil ;  which,  tenacious  of  the  letter,  was  guided  by  it  to  the 
spirit;  which  recognized  the  Church  as  God's  work,  through  the 
Word  \  which  over  against  Rome  maintained  the  sole  authority  of  the 
Word;  over  against  Fanaticism,  the  sufficiency  of  the  Word;  over 
against  Radicalism,  the  witness  of  the  Church,  whose  pure  text  was  to 
be  reached  by  sifting  the  various  readings  of  the  ages.  There  came 
also  into  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  as  there  comes  into  every 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  35 

history,  ignorant  assumption,  envy,  ambition,  love  of  novelty,  and 
all  the  human  passions  which  hover  around  the  great  battle-fields  of 
the  world,  the  host  of  camp-followers,  the  clouds  of  vultures.  The 
test  of  every  cause  is  its  ability  to  endure  its  friends.  The  little 
finger  of  Carlstadt  and  Munzer  was  thicker  than  Tetzel  and  the 
Pope's  loins. 

Nothing  so  endangers  the  great  principle  of  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  as  a  misunderstanding  of  what  the  principle  is,  and  a 
false  application  of  it.  The  right  to  search  the  Scriptures  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  the  evidence  that  the  Scriptures  have  been 
searched.  The  judicial  responsibility  of  the  conscience  to  God 
alone  is  not  to  be  confounded  witli  that  responsibility  which  every 
man  must  assume  in  the  recognition  of  another  man's  views  as  truth  ; 
a  responsibility  to  which  every  man  must  submit  his  own  views  who 
wishes  to  make  them  a  basis  of  recognition  and  fellowsliip.  The 
right  of  private  judgment  is  not  a  right  to  force  fellowship  in  the  re- 
sults of  our  private  judgment  on  those  whose  private  judgment  is  as- 
sured that  we  have  abused  ours.  It  is  not  their  right  to  force  them- 
selves on  us.  That  was  a  private  judgment  of  Peter's  which  was  met 
by  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan."  The  right  of  private  judgment 
in  the  exercise  of  which  a  man  becomes  a  Romanist  is  not  the  right 
to  be  accepted  as  a  Protestant.  There  is  no  principle  in  nature  or 
revelation  which  justifies  the  conscientiously  wrong,  in  demanding 
assent  or  silence  from  the  conscientiously  correct.  The  right  of 
private  judgment  is  not  the  right  of  public  recognition. 

The  disturbing  and  radical  element  in  the  Reformation  prepared 
the  way  for  the  later  laxity  and  the  Unionism  which  attended  it. 
The  tendency  which  was  represented  in  Carlstadt  and  QCcolampa- 
dius,  and  most  energetically  and  consistently  in  Zwingli,  gave  an 
early  impulse  in  this  direction.  This  it  did,  not  simply  in  setting 
forth  the  great  error  which  originated  the  divisions  in  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  but  by  the  levity  with  which  it  regarded  the  whole 
matter  of  division.  A  division  which  meant  the  rending  of  the  Re- 
formation, its  confusion  before  its  enemies,  and  the  periling  of  its 
existence,  was  regarded  as  a  something  which  must  be  held  at  every 
cost,  and  yet,  whose  guilt  could  be  condoned  by  the  shedding  of  a 
few  tears,  the  offer  of  a  hand. 

Luther  and  Zwingli  at  Marburg. 
At  Marburg  the  whole  question  was  epitomized,  and  Luther  there  ' 


36  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

passed  through  a  sorer  struggle,  a  mightier  temptation,  and  showed 
himself  more  matchless  as  a  hero  than  at  Worms — for  what  is  harder 
'  than  to  reject  the  advances  of  seeming  love,  which  pleads  for  our 
acknowledgment  on  the  ground  of  devotion  to  a  common  cause. 
Luther  saved  the  Reformation  by  withholding  the  hand,  whose 
grasp  would  have  meant  the  recognition  of  fundamental  error — either 
as  in  unity  with  faith,  or  as  too  little  a  thing  to  be  weighed.  Not 
only  Luther's  personal  qualities,  but  his  religious  and  reformatory 
principles,  were  precisely  the  same  as  revealed  against  Rome  and 
against  the  Zwinglian  tendencies.  There  is  no  consistency  in  blam- 
ing him  in  his  relation  to  the  latter,  while  we  praise  him  for  his 
attitude  to  the  former.  It  would  have  been  a  surrender  of  the  vital 
principle  by  which  the  Reformation  itself  stands  or  falls — the  au- 
thority and  clearness  of  the  Word.  Concession  at  the  point  at  which 
Zwingli  demanded  it  would  not  have  stopped  there.  Other  conces- 
sions to  other  errors  would  have  been  demanded,  with  equal  justice, 
on  the  same  grounds.  The  political  element  was  no  small  one  in  this 
early  desire  for  Unionism,  and  the  complexion  it  would  have  given 
would  have  brought  a  Capel,  at  which  not  Zwingli  but  the  Refor- 
mation itself  would  have  fallen.  We  know  well  that  there  are  good 
people  so  blinded  to  the  real  character  of  the  scene  at  Marburg 
that  they  regard  Zwingli's  course  as  the  very  embodiment  of  Chris- 
tian love,  and  Luther,  they  think  of,  as  hurried  away  by  the 
zealotry  of  partisanship.  When  Zwingli  declared  that  he  desired 
fellowship  with  no  men  so  much  as  with  the  Wittenbergers,  he 
pressed  on  them  the  hand  of  fraternity,  he  wept  because  they  de- 
clined taking  it.  What  a  loving,  large  spirit  is  that  !  men  exclaim ; 
and  how  poor  before  it  seems  the  narrowness  of  Luther  and  of  Me- 
lanchthon,  of  whom  the  editor  of  Zwingli's  works  has  said  that  "at 
that  time  he  was  almost  Ixarsher  than  Luther  himself."*  But  the 
men  of  Wittenberg  had  not  forgotten  how  Zwingli,  in  1524,  had 
endorsed  the  book  which  Carlstadt  had  directed  against  Luther 
under  the  title  :  "Of  the  execrable  abuse  of  the  Eucharist."  They 
had  not  forgotten  that,  in  1525,  Zwingli  had  assailed  Luther  in 
his  "  Commentary  of  true  and  false  Religion,"  had  pronounced 
Luther's  language  on  the  Eucharist  as  "monstrous,"  and  had  said 
in  the  most  sweeping  way  that  "  neither  were  those  to  be  listened  to 
who  though  they  saw  that  the  opinion  cited"   (Luther's)  "  was  not 


*H.  Zwingli's  Werke  :  (Schuler  u.  SchuUhess)  Vol.  II.  iii.  55. 


DR     KRAUTIl  S    ESSAY.  37 

only  coarse,  but  impious  and  frivolous,  yet  said  that  we  eat  Christ's 
true  body,  but  spiritually."  The  Wittenbergers  had  not  forgotten 
that  he  had  called  those  who  hekl  the  doctrine  of  the  true  presence 
"  Carnivori,"  "  a  stupid  set  of  men,"  and  had  said  that  the  doctrine 
was  "  impious,  foolish,  inhuman  and  worthy  of  anthropophagites." 
And  these  were  the  amenities  of  Zwingli  at  a  period  when  Luther 
had  not  written  a  solitary  word  against  him.  The  Wittenbergers 
had  not  forgotten  that  in  that  same  year  the  book  of  Zwingli  had 
been  followed  up  by  another,  in  which  he  characterizes  the  holders 
of  Luther's  view  as  "  cannibals."  They  had  not  forgotten  that  in 
1527  Zwingli  had  distinctly  declared  that  his  own  view  involved  the 
fundamentals  of  faith,  and  had  condemned  Bucer  for  saying  that 
"either  view  might  be  held  without  throwing  faith  overboard."  On 
this  Zwingli  says :  "  I  do  not  approve  of  his  view.  To  believe  that 
consciences  are  established  by  eating  flesh,  is  conjoined  with  throw- 
ing faith  overboard  (cum  fidei  jactitra)}  The  Wittenbergers  had 
not  forgotten  that  in  1527  Zwingli  had  written  a  book  against 
Luther,  had  dedicated  it  to  the  lilector  of  Saxony,  and  charged 
Luther  to  his  own  Elector  with  "error  and  great  audacity,"  which 
he  claims  to  have  "  exposed."  All  this  the  Wittenbergers  could  not 
forget,  but  all  this  they  could  have  forgiven  had  it  been  sorrowed 
over  and  withdrawn;  but  all  this  remained  unretracted,  unexplained, 
unregretted.  Zwingli  himself  being  judge,  there  was  not  the  fra- 
ternity of  a  common  faith.  The  conflicting  modes  of  interpreta- 
tion involved  in  fact  the  whole  revelation  of  God.  What  Zwingli 
still  held  of  the  old  faith  would  have  gone  down  before  his  rational- 
istic method,  just  as  surely  as  what  he  already  rejected.  All  went 
down  before  it  in  aftertime.  Luther  uttered  the  warning,  but 
Zwingli  would  not  believe  it.  His  course  was  the  beginning  of  that 
effusive  sentiment  of  compromise,  which  from  the  rill  of  1529  has 
gathered  to  the  torrent  of  1877,  and  before  which  we  are  expected 
to  allow,  without  a  struggle,  all  fixed  principle  to  be  swept  away. 

How  fleeting  the  better  mind  of  Zwingli  was,  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  on  the  margin  of  a  copy  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement  at  Mar- 
burg, he  wrote  annotations,  which  prove  how  hollow,  superficial  and 
untrustworthy  the  whole  thing  was  on  his  part. 

The  violence  of  Zwingli  had  been  the  more  unpardonable  because 
he    had   originally  held   the  same  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as 

*  Exegesis  ad  Lutherum. 

449651 


38  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Luther,  and  must  have  known  that  it  did  not  involve  wliat  he 
charges  upon  it.  Even  in  1526  he  wrote  to  Billican  and  otliers 
who  held  Luther's  doctrine  :  "You  affirm  that  Christ's  true  body 
is  eaten,  but  in  a  certain  ineffable  manner."  Zwingli,  indeed,  con- 
fesses in  so  many  words  that  he  had  rejected  the  literal  and  histori- 
cal interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  before  he  was 
able  to  assign  even  to  his  own  mind  a  reason  for  it.  He  tells  us  that 
after  he  had  made  up  his  conviction  without  a  reason,  a  dream  sug- 
gested a  reason.  It  was  indeed  a  reason  demonstratively  irrelevant — 
an  interpretation  which  his  co-workers,  Carlstadt  and  QEcolampadius, 
both  rejected,  and  at  which  a  fair  scholar  of  any  school  would  now 
laugh — but  it  was  enough  to  begin  the  great  schism  whose  miseries 
live  and  spread  to  this  hour.  The  mode  which  unsettles  the  doc- 
trine of  the  true  presence,  unsettles  every  distinctive  Evangelical 
doctrine — the  method  which  explains  it  away,  explains  everything 
away.      To  give  it  up  is  in  principle  to  give  up  everything.      The 

\  division  began  at  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist ;  the  union  must 
begin  at  the  point  of  division.  The  bone  must  be  knit  where  it  was 
broken,  or  the  arm  of  the  Church  will  continue  to  be  distorted  and 

y  enfeebled. 

In  a  few  months  after  the  scenes  at  Marburg,  without  a  vocation 
from  God  or  man,  Zwingli  prepared  a  Confession,  part  of  whose 
object  was  to  condemn  the  views  of  our  Church,  and  to  mark  his 
own  separation  from  it.  He  attempted  to  thrust  upon  the  Diet  at 
Augsburg  his  rationalistic  speculations,  whose  tendency  was  to 
throw  contempt  upon  our  Confession,  to  weaken  and  endanger  our 
cause,  to  peril  the  liberty  and  lives  of  our  confessors,  and  to  haz- 
ard the  cause  of  the  entire  Reformation.  It  was  an  uncalled-for 
parading  of  division  in  the  presence  of  a  ruthless  enemy.  In  his 
Confession,  he  classes  tlie  Lutherans  with  the  Papists,  and  speaks  of 
them  as  "  those  who  are  looking  back  to  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt." 
He  characterizes  our  doctrine  as  an  "error  in  conflict  with  God's 
Word,"  and  says  that  "  he  will  make  this  as  clear  as  the  sun  to  the 
emperor,  and  will  attack  the  opponents  with  argimients  like  batter- 
"ing-rams."  This  is  dated  July  3d,  1530.  Contrast  it  with  the 
brief  and  gentle  words,  which  on  June  25th,  had  been  presented  in 
the  Tenth  Article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  :   "  Therefore,  the 

\  opposite  doctrine  is  rejected,"  "and  they  disapprove  of  those  who 
teach  in  a  contrary  way." 


DR.    KRAUTII  S    ESSAY.  39 

History  of  Interdenominational  Fellowship. 

The  system  of  dcnominationalisni  had  hardly  fairly  been  inaugu- 
rated l)y  the  writings  and  acts  of  Carlstadt  and  Zwingli,  before  the 
inconsistencies,  miseries  and  disasters  it  involves  began  to  manifest 
themselves. 

By  the  system  of  denominationalism,  we  mean  the  system  which 
theoretically  or  practically  rests  on  the  supposition  that  two  or 
more  Christian  bodies  can,  without  imputation  either  of  fun- 
damental error  or  schism  on  either  part,  have  conflicting 
names,  creeds,  altars,  pulpits,  discipline  —  that  they  can  oc- 
cupy and  struggle  for  a  common  territory,  and  yet  keep  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace — can  have  doctrines  and 
sacraments  so  diverse  as  to  necessitate  the  formation  of  distinct 
communions,  and  yet  be  in  the  unity  of  full  Christian  fraternity. 

Bucer  aided  the  general  tendency  by  his  ambiguity,  insisting  that 
the  differences  were  not  real;  abandoning  Zwinglianism,  yet  insisting 
that  it  differed  from  Lutheranism  only  in  terms;  abandoned  by 
Zwinglianism,  yet  trying  still  to  render  it  tractable.  Calvin  at  times 
pursued  the  same  general  line  of  movement  toward  the  Lutherans. 
The  Calvinists  avoided  an  absolute  condemnation  of  Lutheranism, 
largely  but  not  exclusively  for  reasons  of  policy.  They  constantly 
took  the  ground  that  they  were  right,  and  that  the  Lutherans  were 
wrong,  but  not  so  wrong  as  to  prevent  unity.  But  where  Calvinism 
had  no  interest  in  being  mild  toward  Lutheranism,  it  spake  out 
with  a  severity  indicative  of  its  real  feeling.  Castellio,  as  the  fore- 
runner of  Arminianism,  favored  a  general  laxity,  but  did  not  find 
Calvin  or  his  friends  disposed  to*  indulge  him  in  it.  But  the  real 
consistent  movement  to  a  broad  principle  of  comprehension  began 
with  the  Socinians.  In  this  respect,  as  in  others,  the  matured  Ar- 
miiiianism  of  the  left  wing,  on  the  continent,  showed  a  Socinianiz- 
ing  tendency.  The  Friends  helped  to  break  down  the  authority  of 
the  written  word,  and  the  sense  of  the  importance  of  creeds.  The 
Broivnists,  and  later  Independents ,  in  England  and  in  New  England, 
were  helpers  to  the  same  end,  as  soon  as  the  rigidity  of  part}'  ardor 
passed  away.  The  unhistorical  bodies  generally  have  contributed 
to  this  tendency,  among  whom  have  been  specially  active  the  Meth- 
odists. 

Literature. 
There  is  a  great  body  of  irenical  Unionistic  literature.     Every 


40  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

great  division  of  Western  Christendom  has  furnished  some  distin- 
guished names  in  this  department.  Among  nominal  Roman  Cath- 
olics are  prominent  the  names  of  Erasmus,  Wicel,  Cassander,  and 
Hontheim.  In  the  Reformed  Church  we  find  the  names  of  Duraeus, 
Francis  Junius,  the  younger  Turretin.  The  Arminians  have  been 
thus  specially  distinguished  in  their  whole  spirit,  Grotius  was  most 
eminent  among  them  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other  departments. 

In  the  Lutheran  Church  Calixtus  and  his  entire  school  defended 
Syncretistic  views,  not  intercom.munion  indeed,  or  exchange  of 
pulpits,  but  general  fraternity.  Pfaff,  and  the  irenical  school  of  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  followed  in  the  same  general  line  of  thinking. 

The  Unionistic  Controversy  of  recent  times  in  Germany,  looking 
to  the  blending  of  the  Lutheran  and  German  Reformed  Churches, 
has  drawn  forth  an  immense  number  of  works  on  both  sides. 

Among  the  books  which  in  this  country  have  had  an  extraordin- 
ary influence  in  leading  to  the  practice  of  Unionistic  communion, 
the  ablest  and  most  influential  has  been  the  Plea  of  Dr.  John  M. 
Mason,  for  what,  by  a  very  bold  begging  of  the  question,  he  was 
pleased  to  call  "  Holy  Communion  on  Catholic  Principles."  In 
August,  1810,  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  then  recently  formed  under  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Mason,  was 
led  to  hold  its  assemblies  in  "  the  house  belonging  to  the  church 
under  the  pastoral  care  of  Dr.  John  B.  Romeyn,  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  North  America."  As  the 
hours  of  service  were  different,  the  first  effect  of  this  arrangement 
was  a  partial  amalgamation  in  the  exercises  of  public  worship  ; 
the  next  an  esteem  of  each  otJier  as  "united  in  the  same  pre- 
cious faith;"  and  finally,  after  a  very  short  time,  invitations  on 
both  sides  to  join  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  bulk  of  the  members 
of  both  churches,  as  well  as  some  belonging  to  correlate  churches, 
communed  together.  The  Communion  thus  established  has  been 
perpetuated,  and  has  extended  itself  to  ministers  and  private  Chris- 
tians of  other  churches.  "Such  an  event,"  says  Dr.  Mason,  "it  is 
believed,  had  never  before  occurred  in  the  United  States."  It  was 
in  part  a  reaction  against  the  unscriptural  form  of  close  communion 
which  existed  between  the  Calvinistic  Churches.  The  Associate 
Reformed  Church  was  founded  in  the  union  of  two  branches  of 
Secession  in  Scotland,  and  from  the  Reformed  Presbytery.  The 
posture  of    matters  testified    to  five  divisions,  all    Calvinistic — all 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  4I 

Presbyterian — but  not  only  separate  and  exclusive,  but  hostile  com- 
munions. It  was  a  shameful  confession  of  separatistic  tendencies, 
but  a  mere  commimion,  with  the  cause  of  their  separation,  or  want 
of  cause,  unconfessed,  helped  matters  very  little. 

The  movement  of  Dr.  Mason,  however,  was  the  expression  of 
feelings  widespread,  strong,  and  growing.     From  the  first  quarter 
of  the  Nineteenth  Century  there  has  been  a  general  breaking  down 
of  old  landmarks  in  this  country.     Popular  and  influential   forms 
of    embodying   Union   sentiment   have   become  more   and   more 
common.     We  have  Sunday-School  and  Tract  Unions,  Union  Re-'^ 
vivals,  Union  Prayer   Meetings,  the   Evangelical  Alliance,  Young  ; 
Men's   Christian    Associations,    all   involving   compromise  on  the  ' 
principles  of  individualism,  and  all  tending  to  laxity  and  indiffer- 
entism. 

The  world  has  been  coming  into  the  Church,  with  its  easy-going 
policy.  There  has  been  a  large  influx  of  unworthy  professors,  a  re- 
laxation of  discipline,  a  spirit  of  social  complaisance  taking  the 
place  of  principle.  Under  all  these  influences  the  Church  has 
so  lost  her  vitality  that  men  of  the  world  have  begun  not 
only  to  notice  it,  but  to  see  something  of  its  real  causes.  They 
tell  us  plainly  that  one  of  the  greatest  factors  of  the  decline 
in  church  morals,  has  been  the  decline  in  fidelity  to  church  doc- 
trine. Real  morality  must  have  its  root  in  real  faith.  If  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Church  be  good,  fidelity  to  it  makes  the  doctrine  a  mightier 
force;  if  the  doctrine  be  bad,  personal  inconsistency  makes  it  worse. 
A  consistent  Protestant  is  better  for  his  consistency,  for  it  is  the 
accord  of  a  good  life  with  a  good  faith.  A  consistent  Romanist  is 
better  for  his  consistency,  for  the  inconsistent  Romanist  is  simply 
adding  the  lie  of  his  life  to  the  error  of  his  judgment.  The  struggle 
of  Indifferentism  at  first  was  against  making  the  doctrines  in  which 
"  the  Evangelical  denominations  "  differ,  a  test.  But  the  struggle  at 
this  hour  is  against  making  any  doctrines  a  test.  Denominationalism 
with  spread  sails  filling  in  the  gale  of  Unionism,  and  without  pilot 
or  helmsman,  is  bearing  full  upon  the  rock  of  absolute  individualism. 
When  that  rock  is  fairly  struck,  the  vessel  will  go  to  the  bottom. 

III.    THE   RELATION   OF  THE   LUTHERAN    CHURCH,  DE  FACTO 
AND    DE   JURE,    DEFINED. 

The  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  fact,  to 
the  denominations,  must  be  a  question  involving  what  is  in  fact 
4 


42  FREE   LUTHERAN    DIET, 

called  the  Lutheran  Church,  whether  it  be  rightly  so  called  or  not. 
The  question  of  fact  covers  what  exists  in  fact  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  whether  that  existence  keeps  itself  in  harmony  with  right 
principle  or  not.  It  involves  the  de  facto  relations  of  what  is  de 
facto  called  the  Lutheran  Church.  This  is  the  preliminary  part  of 
the  total  question. 

When,  however,  we  come  to  the  real  question — the  heart  of  the 
whole  question — the  question  of  right  relation,  we  consider  the  re- 
lation de  jure,  of  what  is  called  the  Lutheran  Church  de  jure,  and 
Avith  which  relation  the  Lutheran  Church  de  facto  ought  to  coincide 
throughout. 

»  I.    The  Relation  de  facto. 

To  the  question,  what  are  in  fact  the  relations  of  the  nominally 
Lutheran  Church  to  the  denominations  around  us,  the  answer  must 
be  that  they  are  of  the  most  multifarious  and  conflicting  character. 

There  are  indeed  a  few  principles  so  generally  accepted  that  we 
may  consider  them  as  covering  as  far  as  they  go,  a  ground  of  prac- 
tical harmony.  All  our  Lutheran  Churches  now  would  reject  from 
their  altars  those  who  avow  the  errors  which  directly  tend  to  the 
destruction  of  individual  salvation — the  damnable  heresies  in 
which  men  deny  the  Lord  who  bought  them.  There  was  a  time 
when  in  parts  of  our  Church,  men  suspected  of  the  taint  of  So- 
cinian  and  Universalist  views  were  not  subjected  to  discipline — 
days  of  uncontrolled  Latitudinarianism,  Rationalism,  Syncretism, 
and  Lidifferentism.  No  conflict  of  views  agitated  the  surface  of 
the  stagnant  waters  then.  Those  were  the  happy  days,  undisturbed 
by  discussion,  for  which  some  now  sigh  as  a  golden  age — not  that 
they  would  have  error,  but  that  they  would  have  truth  without  a  bat- 
tle. But  perfect  peace  and  perfect  purity  never  can  go  together  on 
earth:  "I  came  not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword."  Peace  with 
God,  peace  with  our  own  consciences — these  we  may  have  ;  but 
peace  with  Satan,  peace  with  heresy,  peace  with  persistent  ignor- 
ance, error,  and  unreasonableness,  we  can  never  have — and  these 
will  rise  as  long  as  man  is  man. 

Our  Church  is  very  much  of  a  mind  furthermore  in  relation  to 
those  parts  of  Christendom  which,  though  they  accept  the  General 
Creeds,  are  yet  involved  in  very  dangerous  errors,  as  for  example 
the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Greek  Churches,  and  certain  extrava- 
gant "Churchmen"  who  are  ashamed  of  Protestantism  and  of  whom 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  43 

Protestantism  is  ashamed.  We  desire  no  official  relation  to  them, 
but  if  we  did  we  could  not  have  it.  Rome  and  the  Greek  Church 
refuse  communion  with  each  other  and  with  the  "Churchmen,"  and 
refuse  it  with  us. 

But  while  those  who  are  confessedly  heretics  and  fundamental 
errorists  are  excluded  from  our  pulpits  and  are  theoretically  excluded 
from  our  altars,  there  are  usages  in  parts  of  our  Church  which  weaken 
our  discipline,  throw  down  the  bar,  and  facilitate  the  approach  to 
our  altars  even  of  the  worst  heretics  and  errorists,  or  of  the  most 
ignorant  and  deluded. 

History  of  Interdenominational  Communion  in  the  Lutheran  Church 

in  America. 

The  history  of  this  authorization  of  untested  communion  in  our 
Church  in  America  is  very  instructive. 

In  the  Agenda  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  United  Congregations 
in  North  America,  1786,  the  first  published  in  this  land;  with  the 
venerable  names  of  the  three  Kurtzes,  of  Eager,  Helmuth,  Schmidt, 
Kunze,  Heinrich  Muhlenberg,  Streit,  Goring,  and  other  worthies, 
with  our  old  prince  and  patriarch,  Heinrich  Melchior  Miihlenberg, 
Doctor  of  Theology  and  Senior  of  the  Ministerium,  at  their  head — 
the  directions  guarding  the  altar  are  very  explicit.  The  Communion 
is  to  be  announced  from  the  pulpit  at  least  eight,  or  if  possible  four- 
teen days  before  the  administration,  with  a  statement  of  the  time 
when  the  people  (die  Leute)  purposing  to  commune  are  to  notify 
the  pastor,  and  have  their  names  recorded.  The  minister  shall  keep 
a  register  of  communicants.  In  case  the  preacher  discovers,  by  the 
notification  of  those  designing  to  commune,  that  any  one  is  living  in 
enmity  or  in  open  scandal,  and  the  pastor  cannot  himself  adjust  the 
difficulty,  he  shall  call  together  the  church  council  and  determine 
who  is  guilty,  that  he  may  be  called  to  account.  On  the  day  pre- 
ceeding  the  communion,  all  the  communicants  who  have  given  this 
notification  come  together  in  the  church.  The  practice  is  approved 
of  reading  from  the  pulpit,  at  this  service,  the  names  of  those  who 
have  thus  come  together  to  confession.  After  the  reading  of  the 
names,  a  verse  is  sung,  and  the  minister,  going  before  the  altar,  re- 
cords the  names  of  those  who  for  cogent  (erheblichen)  reasons  have 
not  been  able  previously  to  notify  him  of  their  desire  to  commune. 
Then  follow  the  questions  of  the  preparatory  service.  Should  there 
yet  be  some  who,  early  on  the  Sunday  or  festival,  notify  the  pastor 


44  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

of  their  desire  to  commune — persons  who  have  been  unable  for 
weighty  (wichtigen)  causes  to  come  to  the  confession — the  pastor  has 
confession  for  them  before  divine  service,  and  announces  to  them 
the  absolution. 

This  defines  the  relation  of  our  Church  in  America  to  the  ques- 
tion of  intercommunion  with  a  clearness  to  which  comment  could 
add  nothing  ;  nor  was  there  anything  in  the  original  usage  of  our 
fathers  in  this  country  fairly  answerable  to  what  is  now  practiced 
under  the  name  of  exchange  of  pulpits. 

In  I  795  the  first  authorized  Liturgy  of  our  Church  in  the  English 
language  was  set  forth  by  Dr.  Kunze,  Senior  of  the  Lutheran  Clergy 
in  the  State  of  New  York.     It  professes  to  be,  and  is  translated  from  - 
the  German  of  the  liturgical  part  of  the  Agenda  of  1786. 

In  1797  appeared  what  called  itself  the  Liturgy  of  the  English 
Lutheran  Church  of  New  York,  edited  by  George  Strebeck,  at  the 
request  of  his  congregation,  and  without  any  pretence  of  authority. 

The  edition  of  the  Liturgy  of  1806  is  Kunze's,  with  modifications 
by  Ralph  Williston,  showing  the  tendency  which  ended  in  taking 
him  into  the  Episcopal  Church. 

The  first  Liturgy  in  our  church  in  America  which  gave  authority 
to  an  unguarded  invitation  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  that  published 
by  order  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  in  181 4.  At  that  time  a 
negative  avoidance  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity 
prevailed  in  that  body ;  and  men  suspected  of  doubt,  if  not 
actual  disbelief  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
the  eternity  of  future  punishments,  were  not  only  not  subjected  to 
discipline,  but  were  leading  men  in  it.  In  the  Liturgy  of  181 4  the 
minister  uses  the  words  :  "In  the  name  of  Christ,  our  common  and 
only  Master,  I  say  to  all  who  own  Him  as  their  Saviour,  and  resolve 
to  be  His  faithful  subjects  :  ye  are  welcome  to  this  feast  of  love."  The 
Formula,  left  to  the  interpretation  of  those  who  heard  it,  would  justify 
to  all  denominations,  even  the  most  heterodox,  or  indeed  to  those 
who  are  not  members  of  the  Church  at  all,  an  approach  to  our 
altar. 

In  1 81 8  appeared  the  German  Liturgy  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, in  some  respects,  but  alas  !  not  in  others,  a  second  edition  of  the 
Agenda  of  1786.  For  the  form  of  confession  and  preparation  for 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  same  rubrics  are  in  it  as  far  as  the  end  of  the 
2d  part  of  the  4th  paragraph.     The  reading  from  the  pulpit  of  the 


I 


DR.  krauth's  essay.  45 

names  of  those  who  desire  to  commune  is  no  longer  mentioned. 
The  fifth  paragraph  now  reads  :  "  Should  there  be  some  who  early 
on  the  Sunday  or  festival  notify  their  desire  to  commune,  who  for 
weighty  reasons  have  not  been  able  to  come  to  the  confession,  the 
preacher  speaks  heartily  with  them  in  private,  and  they  may  yet  be 
admitted  to  the  communion."  There  comes  then  a  second  formula, 
but  under  the  same  rubrics.  For  the  Lord's  Supper  there  are  three 
formulas.  The  first  has  no  invitation.  The  second  has  the  invita- 
tion nearly  word  for  word,  which  we  have  given  from  the  New 
York  liturgy  of  1814.  All  of  them  have  the  Rationalistic,  Union- 
istic  form  of  distribution,  and  the  noble  service  of  1786  is  not  even 
given  as  one  of  the  optional  forms.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Ger- 
man Liturgy  published  in  the  name  of  the  Synods  of  Pennsylvania, 
New  York  and  Ohio,  1842. 

The  New  York  Formula  of  181 4  is  given  in  the  Liturgy  published 
by  order  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  edited  by  Dr.  Hazelius, 
1 841.  In  the  General  Synod's  Liturgy  the  invitation  is  made  yet 
broader:  "  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  I  say  to  all  who  sincerely 
love  Him,  ye  are  welcome  to  this  feast  of  love."  In  the  Liturgy 
recommended  and  published  by  order  of  the  General  Synod,  1847, 
the  service  for  the  Lord's  Supper  has  four  formulas.  The  first  is 
without  a  general  invitation.  In  the  second  the  minister,  in  invit- 
ing the  communicants  to  the  altar,  says  :  "  This  invitation  is  cordi- 
ally extended  to  all  who  are  members  in  good  standing  of  other 
Christian  denominations.  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  I  say  to  all 
who  sincerely  love  Him,  ye  are  welcome  to  this  feast  of  love." 
In  the  third  formula  the  minister  is  authorized  to  use  these  words  : 
"In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  common  Lord,  I  say  to  all  who 
have  embraced  Him  as  their  Saviour  and  are  resolved  by  His  grace 
to  live  as  becomes  His  true  followers,  ye  are  welcome  to  this  feast  of 
love."  In  the  Liturgy  published  as  part  of  the  Book  of  Worship  by 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  General  Synod  in  North  America,  in  the 
rubric  of  the  Order  of  Confession,  p.  79,  it  is  said:  "Those 
who  intend  to  commune  may  report  their  names  to  the  pastor  after 
the  notice  has  been  given,  and  all  who  have  failed  to  do  this  should 
be  required  to  do  it  at  the  time  of  holding  the  preparatory  service, 
that  the  pastor  and  council  may  know  if  any  member  neglects  the 
Holy  Communion.  The  names  of  the  communicants  shoukl  be  re- 
corded in   the  church  book.     Immediately  after  the   names  have 


46  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

been  taken  down,  the  elders  of  the  church  shall  examine  the  list, 
and  if  any  suspended  or  expelled  members  shall  have  handed  in 
their  names,  they  shall  be  directed  not  to  approach  the  sacred  board 
until  restored  to  their  standing  in  the  church." 

At  the  Supper,  the  minister  giving  the  invitation  says:  "This 
invitation  is  cordially  extended  not  only  to  all  visiting  disciples  of 
our  own  communion,  but  also  to  all  who  are  members  in  good 
standing  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  I 
say  to  all  who  truly  love  Him,  ye  are  welcome  to  this  feast  of  love. 
We  are  all  one  in  Christ."  In  the  rubric  of  the  Confession,  and  in 
this  of  the  Supper,  the  irreconcilable  systems  and  practices  clash  to- 
gether.    The  first  is  Lutheran,  the  second  is  not. 

Inferences. 
A  study  of  these  historical  facts  shows  : 

1.  The  original  position  of  our  Church  in  America  was  one  of  entire 
unity  in  theory  and  practice  as  regards  intercommunion.  It  knows 
of  none  but  Lutheran  communicants  at  Lutheran  altars,  of  none  hav- 
ing the  privileges  of  our  Church  without  being  subjected  to  its  dis- 
cipline. 

2.  The  changes  and  departure  from  early  usage  took  place  when 
the  patriarchs  were  gone,  and  was  the  result  of  a  response  on  the 
part  of  Rationalism  and  Unionism  within  our  Church,  to  Rational- 
ism and  Unionism  outside  of  it. 

3.  The  General  Invitations  of  a  later  period  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter as  to  destroy  all  the  force  and  significance  of  the  preparatory 
service.  Those  who  hear  the  invitation  being  constituted  judges  in 
their  own  cases,  members  of  heterodox  churches,  members  of  no 
church,  expelled  or  suspended  members  of  our  own  Church  and  of 
other  churches,  could  come  to  the  altar  upon  them.  The  general 
invitations  mean  chaos  and  contempt  of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord. 

II.    The  Relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  de  jure. 
The  consideration  of  the  history  and  state  of  our  relations  de 
facto,  has  prepared  us  for  the  yet  weightier  question,  What  is  the 
relation  de  jure  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  genuinely  such,  to  the  de- 
nominations around  us  ?     To  this  question  we  answer  : 

First  ;  The  relations  are  such  as  involve  and  are  in  harmony 
with  the  principles  on  which  the  Lutheran  Church  vindicates  her 
right  to  exist.     She  claims  a  right  to  exist  because  she  is  the  Church 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  47 

in  which /a/M  takes  its  true  place,  as  the  central  bond  to  the  central 
and  supreme  object,  Jesus  Christ — Christus  Solus,  Fides  Sola.  She 
is  the  Church  of  Faith,  as  knowledge,  assent  and  trust,  divinely 
given,  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Word  and  Sacra- 
ments, and  justifying  us  as  it  lays  hold  of  the  merits  of  the  all  suf- 
ficient Saviour.  She  restored  to  the  Church  and  taught  to  the 
nations  that  faith  is  a  conviction  which  binds  the  conscience  unre- 
servedly, and  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  opinion. 

She  claims  a  right  to  exist  because  she  is  a  Biblical  Church. 
Judging  as  she  does  of  faith,  our  Church  must  emphasize  the  Rule 
of  Faith,  as  the  organ  by  which  faith  is  generated.  The  Work  of 
the  Spirit,  which  is  faith,  and  holiness  through  faith,  will  consummate 
itself  by  an  organ  adapted  to  its  end.  A  sure  faith  must  have  a 
sure  rule,  a  clear  faith  a  clear  rule.  A  faith  to  bind  us  must  have  a 
rule  to  bind  it.  If  the  faith  is  to  be  sufficient  for  shaping  mind, 
heart  and  will,  the  rule  must  be  sufficient  to  shape  the  faith.  That 
is  not  a  divine  faith  which  is  not  shaped  by  a  divine  rule,  and  that 
is  not  a  divine  rule  which  does  not  produce  a  divine  faith.  It  we 
are  responsible  for  our  faith  to  God,  the  rule  by  which  he  shapes 
it  will  be  such  as  to  demand  and  justify  the  responsibility.  Hence 
our  Church  knows  of  no  Rule  of  Faith  from  which  we  may  depart, 
on  a  mere  agreement  to  differ ;  none  which  may  yield  to  self-reliant 
reason  ;  none  which  may  give  way  to  fanatical  revelations  or  fanat- 
ical interpretations  ;  none  which  a  man  may  put  aside  passively  on 
the  ground  that  certainty  cannot  be  reached,  or  is  not  worth  the 
trouble  it  will  give  to  reach  it.  She  rests  on  the  Word  as  clear,  har- 
monious, self-interpreting,  binding. 

Our  Church  claims  the  right  to  exist  because  of  her  confessional 
position.  She  clearly  confesses  the  whole  truth  of  God.  In  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  whole  Word  of  God,  this  Confession,  where  the  sense 
of  that  word  is  undisputed,  is  implicit.  But  wherever  the  sense  of 
that  Word  is  denied,  obscured,  perverted  or  ignored,  her  Confession 
is  expressed  ^iXvdi  set  forth  in  the  Theses  and  Antitheses  of  her  Sym- 
bols. Having  a  clear  faith,  resting  on  a  clear  rule,  our  Church  can- 
not but  emphasize  a  clear,  unmistakable  Confession  of  Faith — her 
witness  to  the  true  sense  of  God's  Word,  claiming  derivative  authority 
as  the  expression  of  that  sense.  Resting  the  obligation  of  the  Con- 
fession on  that  ground,  and  her  children  being  those  who  recognize 
the  validity  of  that  ground,  she  can  do  nothing,  allow  nothing,  in  con- 


48  FREE   LUTHERAN    DIET. 

flict  with  this  conviction.  The  Confession  must  be  the  test  of  her  pul- 
pits, the  guardian  of  her  altars,  or,  she,  on  her  own  showing,  forsakes 
the  Word,  abandons  the  faith,  is  disloyal  to  God.  He  who  rejects 
her  Confession  of  Faith  rejects  her  Rule  of  Faith  in  its  right  teaching. 
The  Confession  of  Unbelief  makes  the  Rule  of  Faith  a  Rule  of  Un- 
belief. 

She  claims  a  historical  right  to  exist.  Her  history  proves  her 
divine  origin  and  necessity ;  and  as  our  Church  has  been  needed  in 
the  past,  so  is  she  needed  in  the  present.  She  is  needed  not  only  for 
her  motherhood  to  her  own  children,  but  for  the  great  wants  of 
Christendom  and  of  the  world.  She  is  needed  as  a  witness  to  that 
doctrine  which  is  conceded  in  terras  by  the  whole  Protestant  world, 
but  which  is  invaded  primarily  or  by  necessary  inference  by  every 
system  which  is  at  war  with  ours — the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith.  Inadequate  views  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ ;  false  views 
of  election  and  reprobation  ;  of  the  means  of  grace,  the  Word  and 
Sacraments ;  the  mode  and  subjects  of  Baptism ;  the  nature  of  the 
validity  and  efficacy  of  the  ministry, — all  are  in  conflict,  covertly  it 
may  be,  but  really,  with  the  true  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith. 
Romanism  and  Ritualism  directly  assail  it;  Rationalism  destroys  it; 
Fanaticism,  sometimes  with  an  affectation  of  zealotry  for  it,  confounds 
justification  by  faith  with  justification  by  sensation,  and  leads  the 
penitent  to  rest,  not  on  the  old,  eternal  promise,  but  on  a  new  personal 
revelation.  No  Church  holds  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith 
in  that  consistent  integrity  and  harmonious  relation  within  itself  and 
with  all  other  doctrines,  in  which  it  is  held  and  confessed  in  the 
Lutheran  Church. 

With  the  principles  on  which  she  rests  her  claim  to  be  of  right  a 
church,  all  the  acts  of  our  Church  for  which  she  is  fairly  responsi- 
ble have  accorded.  Her  pidpits  and  altars  have  been  meant  for 
those  only  who  have  borne  the  tests  which  she  imposes,  as  neces- 
sary to  separate  those  who  give  credible  evidence  of  fidelity  to  the 
obligations  of  her  pulpits  and  altars,  from  those  who  have  never 
been  suljjected  to  these  tests.  Her  name,  her  existence,  her  creeds, 
her  Agenda,  her  standard  divines  of  all  schools,  her  whole  history, 
up  to  this  hour  of  anti-unionistic  struggle  against  state-force  in 
Europe  and  sect-craft  in  America,  are  witnesses  to  her  position  of 
fidelity.  She  can  have  no  fellowship  of  pulpit  and  altar  where  there 
is  no  attested  fellowship  of  faith ;  the  attestation  of  felloshwip  of 


DR.    KRAUTII  S    ESSAY.  49 

faith  is  by  public  confession.  She  cannot  accept  the  teachers  of 
the  denominations  as  her  teachers,  nor  acknowledge  their  members 
at  her  altars,  as  her  children,  or  as  in  the  full  fraternity  of  an  incor- 
rupt faith. 

The  Comino7i  Judgment  of  Christendom. 

Secondly:  The  relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the  "evangel- 
ical denominations"  around  us  are  in  accord  with  the  common  judg- 
ment of  Christendom  until  the  time  of  the  decline  of  Faith  and  the 
rise  of  Unionism.  They  are  relations  justified  by  the  official  princi- 
ples and  official  acts  especially  of  the  evangelical  denominations  them- 
selves. We  narrow  this  point  to  the  "evangelical  denominations;" 
for  whatever  may  be  the  exceptional  extreme  of  looseness,  the  only 
open  question  to  the  larger  part  of  our  Church  in  regard  to  pulpit 
and  altar  fellowship  is  limited  to  those  denominations  around  us 
which  are  somewhat  vaguely  styled  "evangelical." 

The  term  is  so  vague  that  we  can  perhaps  only  make  it  distinctive 
by  enumerating  the  principal  bodies  or  parts  of  bodies  embraced  in 
it.  It  usually  covers  the  Reformed,  German  and  Dutch;  the  Pres- 
byterians of  all  the  divisions  ;  the  Baptists;  the  Methodists;  the  Con- 
gregationalists;  the  Episcopalians  (the  Puseyistic  portion  excepted); 
the  Moravians.  There  is  a  herd  beside  of  small  sects — small  in 
every  sense — who  cover  themselves  with  it,  and  who  seem  to  think 
that  the  Evangelical  element,  like  a  homeopathic  remedy,  is  poten- 
tiated by  division.     Their 

"  wound  is  great  because  it  is  so  small, 
And  would  be  greater  were  it  none  at  all  " 

What  ought  to  be  the  principles  controlling  the  relations  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  to  these  denominations,  the  denominations  them- 
selves, in  their  official  character  and  expression,  being  the  judges? 
We  say  "their  official  character  and  expression,"  by  which  we 
mean  their  Confessions,  and  the  authorized  exposition  of  them,  and 
their  Constitutions  and  Discipline,  interpreted  by  their  acts  when 
they  were  yet  confessedly  faithful  to  their  principles.  For  the 
official  judgment  of  these  denominations  is  not  to  be  gathered 
from  the  lawless,  careless,  irresponsible  usage  of  individuals,  or 
even  of  a  general  usage  which  has  crept  in.  Were  there  no  other 
reason,  we  should  have  too  much  self-respect,  and  too  much  re- 
gard for  law  to  avail  ourselves  of  unauthorized  invitations  to  take 
the  pulpits  or  approach  the  altars  which  are  opened  to  us  by  irre- 


50  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

sponsible  men,  who  in  doing  so  violate  their  ordination  vows,  and 

treat  with  contempt  the  principles  and   order  of  the  Church  they 

pretend  to  serve.     No  minister  of  ours  has  a  right  to  open  his  pulpit 

or  altar  without  being  able  distinctly  to  show  how  he  acquired  that 

right — who  gave  it  to  him — and  to  prove  that  those  who  gave  it 

to  him  had  the  right  to  give  it ;  and  he  has  no  right  to  give  it  ex- 

^  cept  on  the  principle  on  which  he  got  it.     So  have  we  no  right  to 

^    accept  the  invitation  to  pulpit  or  altar  of  others  unless  we  know 

^    that  they  have  the  right  to  offer  it. 

In  point  of  moral  consistency,  not  one  of  these  denominations 
has  the  right  to  invite  us  as  Lutherans  to  its  pulpits  and  altars. 
They  have  names  which  in  their  historical  definition  mean  some- 
thing which  implies  that  we  are  so  far  wrong  that  they  are  obliged 
to  form  or  maintain  communions  distinct  from  ours.  They  have 
Confessions  which  they  have  no  right  to  have,  unless  they  believe 
before  God  that  they  contain  the  principles  which  alone  can  deter- 
mine what  must  be  taught  as  the  very  truth  of  God  in  the  pulpit, 
and  which  if  it  is  the  very  truth  of  God  must  not  be  rejected  at  the 
table.  They  all  have  modes  of  testing  without  which  their  own 
members  cannot  be  admitted  to  their  pulpits,  and  which  they  cannot 
consistently  remit  in  our  case.  They  all  have  modes  of  testing  and 
admitting  their  own  members  to  communion,  and  they  have  no 
right  to  admit  us  without  these  tests,  or  if  they  should  so  admit  us, 
they  should  so  admit  their  own. 

And  in  point  of  fact,  a  number  of  these  denominations  do  con- 
sistently exclude  us  and  others.  No  Episcopalian  admits  us  to  pulpit 
or  altar  without  defying  the  Canons  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ; 
a  number  of  the  smaller  Presbyterian  bodies  exclude  us  and  all  but 
their  own  ministers  and  members  from  pulpit  and  altar  ;  the  Baptists 
sometimes  inconsistently  admit  us  and  others  to  their  pulpits,  but 
the  great  body  of  them  consistently  with  their  convictions  exclude 
us  and  others  from  their  altars.  Whatever  may  be  the  laxity  of  prac- 
tice which  has  grown  up,  all  the  historical  Churches  of  Christen- 
dom coincide  in  their  real  principles,  which  regulate  the  relation  of 
pulpit  and  altar,  with  the  very  strongest  and  extremest  held  in  the 
theory,  or  carried  out  in  the  practice  of  the  most  consistent  part  of 
the  Lutheran  Church.     These  coincident  principles  are  : 

I .  That  pure  doctrine  and  pure  sacraments  are  essential  marks  of 
the  Church. 


DR.  krauth's  essay.  51 

2.  That  a  Church  has  no  right  to  a  being  on  its  own  showing  ex- 
cept as  it  claims  these  marks.  A  Church  which  does  not  know  that  it 
has  these  marks  does  not  know  that  it  is  a  pure  Church.  A  Church 
which  does  not  believe  that  it  has  these  marks  has  no  right  to  be- 
lieve that  it  is  a  pure  Church. 

3.  That  Confessions  are  mainly  designed  as  modes  of  stating  what 
are  the  features  of  doctrine  and  sacrammts  which  the  Churches 
which  set  them  forth  believe  to  be  essential  to  the  manifestation  and 
maintenance  of  purity. 

4.  That  Churches  are  to  be  judged  by  and  treated  in  accordance 
with  their  Confessions  and  the  official  interpretation  of  them. 

5.  That  communions  opposed  to  the  Confession  of  a  pure  Church 
are  so  far  opposed  to  the  truth  itself,  and  so  far  not  in  fellowship 
with  the  pure  Church  itself. 

6.  That  subjection  to  the  tests  and  discipline  of  a  Church  are  es- 
sential to  the  right  to  enjoy  its  privileges. 

7.  That  avowed  or  implied  rejection  of  the  Confession,  is  in  fact 
a  rejection  of  the  Church  which  accepts  it,  and  should  bar  access 
to  its  pulpits  and  altars. 

lY.    THE   RELATION    OF   THE   LUTHERAN   CHURCH    TO    THE   DENOMINA- 
TIONS   AROUND    US    VINDICATED. 

Objections  to  the  Lutheran  Position. 

We  now  propose  to  meet  the  most  plausible  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  the  position  of  our  Church.  This  we  shall  do  in 
the  form  of  negative  definitions  of  our  relation.  In  so  doing  we 
would  say ; 

First  :  That  it  is  not  a  relation  which  refuses  to  make  discrimi- 
nation. It  does  indeed  put  all  on  a  common  level  so  far  as  untested 
admission  to  pulpit  and  altar  is  concerned.  So  do  all  associations, 
with  their  distinctive  official  rights  and  privileges.  So  does  the 
State  with  hers.  Any  man  who  is  not  a  citizen  cannot  vote,  or  be 
elected  to  an  office.  Any  foreigner  who  is  not  naturalized  is  debar- 
red from  the  distinctive  rights  of  citizenship.  Any  one  under  legal 
age  is  denied  access  to  the  polls.  And  yet  how  untrue  it  would  be 
to  say  that  there  is  no  discrimination  on  the  part  of  our  government 
toward  those  not  under  it — none  of  feeling,  none  of  desire  or  hope 
of  closer  relationship,  of  friendship  and  of  affinity — that  she  does  not 
discriminate  between  the  English  and  German,  on  the  one  side,  the 


$2  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Chinese  and  the  Hottentot  on  the  otlier.  With  some  nations  she 
cultivates  close  amity,  others  she  treats  with  caution,  others  she  holds 
at  a  distance.  So  does  our  Church  maintain  distinct  and  different  re- 
lations to  the  various  denominations  around  us  She  discriminates 
with  reference  to  their  grades  of  error  and  their  grades  of  truth — the 
degrees  of  responsibility  for  schism  connected  with  their  origin  and 
principles.  She  distinguishes  between  Churches  and  individuals  who 
are  friendly,  appreciative,  just,  and  kind  toward  us,  and  those  who 
are  coarse,  ignorant  and  unjust.  These  discriminations  are  marked  in 
our  Confessions,  which  attest  our  sympathy  with  all  truth,  and  with 
all  men  so  far  as  they  hold  it — they  are  marked  by  our  personal  re- 
gard, by  our  recognition  in  our  literature,  and  books  of  worship,  and 
by  all  kindly  tokens,  which  involve  no  compromise  of  principle.  We 
sympathize  with  the  remnants  of  Evangelical  life  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  over  against  its  corruptions;  with  genuine  Protest- 
antism, as  against  Popery;  with  historical  conservatism,  sobriety, 
culture  and  religious  principle,  in  whatever  denomination,  over 
against  radicalism,  fanaticism,  coarseness,  and  impulsive  sensation- 
alism— wherever  they  may  be — and  we  cast  our  weight  as  a  Church 
agamst  all  the  evil  and  for  all  the  good  around  us.  Our  practice 
simply  subjects  to  one  and  the  same  test  those  born  in  our  Church 
and  those  not  born  in  it. 

Fundamentals . 
Secon'd  :  The  relations  of  our  Church  to  the  denominations 
around  us,  involve  no  rejection  or  ignoring  of  the  just  distinction 
between /undamenf aland  non-fundamental  Our  quarrels  with  error 
are  not  on  questions  touching  Tobit's  dog,  or  as  to  the  capacity  of  a 
legion  of  angels  to  dwell  in  the  eye  of  a  cambric  needle  or  hover  on 
its  point.  The  doctrinal  terms  of  communion  in  our  Church  involve 
fundamentals  only — doctrines  which  directly  or  by  necessary  conse- 
quence involve  the  integrity  of  that  distinctive  truth  which  Revela- 
tion is  given  to  teach,  and  which  the  Church  is  to  defend  and  extend, 
the  impairing  of  which  begins  with  destroying  her  well-being  and 
ends  in  the  loss  of  her  life.  What  is  fundamental  truth  ?  The 
practical  answer  to  this  question  in  the  only  shape  in  which  it  comes 
up  here  is,  Truth  which  is  rightly  made  a  term  of  teaching  and  of 
communion  by  embodiment  in  the  Confessional  standards,  and  the 
permanent  official  acts  of  the  Church.  Either  the  denominations 
regard  their  Confessions  as  statements  of  fundamental  truth  in  this 


DR.  krauth's  essay.  53 

sense,  or  they  do  not.  If  they  do,  then  we  deal  with  them  as,  for 
ourselves,  asserting  that  the  Articles  of  our  Standards  are  funda- 
mental in  this  sense,  and  that  they  hold  that  theirs  are  fundamental 
in  the  same  way.  If  they  do  not,  then  they  make  what  they  confess 
to  be  unnecessary,  non-fundamental  things,  terms  of  teaching  and 
communion ;  they  are  self-convicted  of  schism,  and  they  render 
official  church- fellowship  with  them,  on  our  part,  impossible. 

If  they  say,  these  may  be  necessary  terms  of  permanent  teaching 
and  permanent  communion,  but  not  of  occasional  teaching  and 
communion,  they  either  assert,  or  their  practice  assumes,  that  what 
is  wrong  in  principle  as  a  constant  thing,  is  right  in  principle  as  an 
occasional  thing,  which  is  as  flagrantly  illogical  as  to  say  that  it  is 
right  to  violate  the  moral  law  occasionally  though  it  is  wrong  to  do 
it  constantly;  or  they  must  say  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  princi- 
ple but  of  expediency,  into  which  the  occasional  may  enter.  In 
this  case  they  acknowledge  that  their  confessions  and  their  denom- 
inational life  with  them  are  based  not  on  immutable  verities  but  on 
expediency,  and  again  they  proclaim  themselves  sects  and  make  it 
impossible  for  us  to  have  church-fellowship  with  them. 

There  may  be,  and  there  are,  denominations  which,  without  vio- 
lence to  their  faith,  may  admit  that  our  Church  holds  fundamental 
truth,  and  is  involved  in  no  fundamental  error,  in  regard  to  whom 
we  are  constrained  to  say  that  they  do  not  confess  all  fundamental 
truth,  and  that  they  are  involved  m  fundamental  trvox.  From  their 
definition  of  a  doctrine,  the  error — our  error,  as  they  allege — may 
not  he  fundafnental ;  while  from  our  definition  of  the  doctrine,  the 
error — their  error — may  be  fundamental ;  for  a  fundamental  error 
must  be  arrayed  against  a  fundamental  truth.  There  can  no  more 
be  fundamental  error  without  a  fundamental  truth,  than  a  man 
can  have  heart  disease  in  his  little  finger,  though  disease  in  a  non- 
fundamental  may  result  from  or  be  a  proof  of  disease  in  the  funda- 
mental, or  spread  from  it  and  affect  the  fundamental.  The  ques- 
tion, In  what  respects  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  funda- 
mental, can  not  be  settled  without  reference  to  the  question, 
What  is  the  Lord's  Supper?  The  determination  involves  a 
definition.  On  the  theory  that  the  Lord's  Supper  represents 
something,  but  conveys  nothing,  is  a  symbol  of  grace,  but  not 
one  of  its  means — that  whatever  there  is  in  it,  it  has  in  common 
with  a  number  of  other  things — granting  this  theory,  it  is  clear 
that   the   importance   of    the    Lord's   Supper   is    relatively   little, 


54  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

and  that  error  in  regard  to  it  is  comparatively  innocuous.  A  truth 
or  an  error  merely  involving  a  figure  of  speech,  a  symbol,  a  single 
species  of  a  genus,  is  not  speculatively,  nor  practically,  like  a  truth 
or  error,  involving  a  literal  verity,  a  solemn  reality,  a  something 
unique  in  its  nature,  design  and  blessings.  A  correct  estimate  or 
a  mistake  of  the  weight  and  value  of  an  ounce  of  copper  known  to 
be  such,  is  not  like  a  right  or  wrong  estimate  about  the  weight 
and  value  of  an  ounce  of  gold.  But  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  think 
that  a  piece  of  copper  is  a  piece  of  gold,  or  a  piece  of  gold  a  piece 
of  copper,  or  to  confound  skillful  paste  with  pearls,  or  pearls  with 
paste.  When  a  dispute  arises  as  to  whether  certain  metal  be  cop- 
per or  gold,  certain  jewels  paste  or  pearls,  he  who  is  sure  that  the 
thing  in  dispute  is  copper  or  paste,  cares  comparatively  little  about 
the  decision — it  is  non-fundamental  to  him.  To  him  who  is  sure  it 
is  gold  or  pearl,  the  question  is  fundamental.  It  is  no  sacrifice  to 
the  one  to  risk  his  ignoble  metal  and  counterfeit — but  tO"  the 
other  to  risk  pure  gold  and  a  priceless  pearl,  is  something  from 
which  he  shrinks.  A  Zwinglian  may  admit  that  a  Lutheran  is  not 
in  fundamental  error — a  Lutheran  cannot  admit  it  in  regard  to  a 
Zwinglian.  To  claim  that  what  is  but  bread  and  wine  really,  is 
Christ's  body  and  blood,  may  be  a  great  absurdity — but  it  is  the 
result  of  too  absolute  a  trust  in  His  word,  it  is  the  superstition 
of  faith ;  but  to  say  that  what  He  really  tells  us  is  His  body  and 
blood,  is  but  bread  and  wine,  implies  lack  of  trust  in  His  word — it  is 
the  superstition  of  unbelief.  But  the  astonishing  thing  is  that  those 
who  reproach  us  for  treating  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
fundamental,  do  themselves  treat  it  in  the  same  way.  They  treat  it 
dL^a  fundamental  by  making  it  a  part  of  their  Confession,  and  in  every 
one  of  the  aspects  in  which  our  Confession  considers  it.  It  is  in  the 
XXXIX  Articles,  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  in  every  other 
great  Protestant  Confession,  carefully  stated,  and  guarded  not  only 
against  Rome,  but  guarded  against  our  Church.  That  is  an  official 
admission  and  claim  that  the  doctrine  is  clearly  revealed,  that  they 
hold  it  in  its  purity,  that  we  are  wrong  in  it,  and  that  a  clear  confes- 
sion on  the  very  points  in  which  they  are  right  and  we  are  wrong 
is  needful.  Their  own  Confessions  witness  against  them  when  they 
say  that  the  Lutheran  Church  should  not  make  her  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  a  term  of  teaching  and  communion. 

They  make  their  own  doctrine  such  a  term,  and  yet  they  have  far 
less  reason  to  do  so  than  we.     They  have  a  metaphor  to  literalize; 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  5  5 

we  accept  a  verity  deep  as  the  incarnation  itself,  a  verity  involving 
the  incarnation  and  involved  in  it. 

It  has  pleased  them  sometinnes  to  represent  the  whole  matter  as 
a  dispute  about  mere  phrases.  We  are  agreed,  they  say,  about  the 
thing — but  the  contest  is  kept  up  about  words.  If  this  be  so,  and 
as  we  believe  that  our  words  are  necessary  to  guard  the  thing,  why 
will  they  not  consent  to  our  words  ?  To  us  it  is  no  logomachy.  If  it 
be  so  to  them,  why  do  they  not  give  up  their  "mere  phrases?"  And 
where  did  those,  who  attempt  to  make  us  odious  for  insisting  on  our 
faith  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  ever  engage  to  be  silent  in  re- 
gard to  their  own?  The  history  of  the  controversy  from  the  begin- 
ning .shows  how  eager  and  persistent  the  Zwinglians  and  Calvinists 
were  in  urging  their  own  doctrine  and  assailing  ours.  The  plea  for 
liberality  to  be  shown  on  our  part  meant  freedom  for  themselves  to 
hold  and  teach  error,  without  wholesome  moral  correction  from 
;  us.  It  means  all  through,  We  will  rob  you  of  your  faith  if  we  can, 
V  and  if  we  cannot,  we  will  insist  that  you  shall  at  least  think  it  of  lit-  # 
tie  account. 

But  while  our  relations  discriminate  between  fundamental  and 
non-fundamental,  they  are  not  meant  to  lower  the  dignity  and  value 
of  any  truth.  We  exalt  fundamentals  over  fionfundamentals,  but 
we  lift  both  as  truth  over  all  error.  The  Church  is  not  to  treat  with 
indifference  any  false  teaching. 

Infallibility. 
Third  :  The  relations  of  our  Church  to  the  denominations  around 
us  rest  on  no  claim  to  infallibility.  Infallibility  is  incapability  of 
failing,  and  belongs  to  nothing  human  as  .such.  The  infallibility  of 
the  Church  is  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  catholic  or  invisible; 
that  is,  this  Church  will  always  exist,  and  its  very  existence  implies 
that  it  is  infallibly  secure  from  soul-destroying  error,'' — there  cannot 
be  a  total  lapse  of  the  entire  body  of  true  believers  from  those  essen- 
tials of  faith  without  which  the  soul  of  man  cannot  be  savingly  knit 
to  the  Redeemer.  Not  only  is  this  so  in  fact,  but  it  is  so  of  divine 
necessity.  "One  holy  Christian  Church  must  be  and  abide  for  all 
time.""  So  much  of  the  Church  invisible  as  is  within  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  so  far  infallible.     But  this  is  equally  true  of  every  part  of 


*  Gerhard  Loci,,  Loc,  xxiii.  Cap.  ix. 
^  Augsb.  Confess.,  Art.  vii. 


56  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  Church  visible,  and  does  not  prove  that  there  will  always  be  such 
members  within  a  communion  bearing  the  name  Lutheran,  or  in  any 
of  the  communions  bearing  the  names  under  which  at  present  the 
Christian  Church  is  classified.  No  particular  Church  is  incapable  of 
erring,  of  apostasy,  decline  and  destruction.  Many  particular 
Churches  have  erred  and  perished,  or  have  erred  and  still  exist.  "As 
the  Churches  of  Hierusalem,  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  have  erred, 
so  also  the  Church  of  Rome  hath  erred,  not  only  in  their  living  and 
manner  of  cere  ronies,  .but  also  in  matters  of  faith."" 

The  Lutheran  Church,  therefore,  does  not  claim  infallibility.  She 
has  not  overthrown  one  Rome  to  set  up  another.  She  simply  claims 
that  in  fact  she  has  not  erred  in  the  Articles  of  Faith,  and  this  free- 
dom from  error  she  ascribes,  not  to  herself  in  her  human  powers, 
but  alone  to  the  grace  of  God  operating  in  His  own  appointed  ways 
in  accordance  with  His  own  immutable  promises. 

The  Church  of  Rome  says  :  The  Catholic  Church  is  infallible ; 
the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  Catholic  Church ;  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  infallible.  We  say  the  entire  Catholic  Church,  as  entire,  alone 
is  infallible,  and  that  simply  in  respect  of  all  the  fundamentals  of  per- 
sonal salvation.  The  Lutheran  Church  contains  but  a  part  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  therefore  she  is  not  infallible.  But  our  Church 
says  also  :  Any  part  of  the  Church  which  seeks  the  truth  in  com- 
plete accordance  with  God's  commands  and  promises  will  be  kept 
from  failing.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  so  sought  the  truth  ;  there- 
fore she  has  been  kept  from  failing. 

It  would  be  indeed  a  lamentable  thing  if  the  question  of  the  claim 
of  one  thing,  could  be  identified  and  confounded  \vith  the  question 
of  the/tz^/  of  another  thing.  If  to  assert  that  in  fact  there  has  been 
no  failure,  is  to  assert  in  claim  that  there  is  infallibility,  then  it  holds 
good  of  every  individual,  of  every  communion,  and  of  the  totality 
of  communions.  No  man  can  claim  not  to  have  failed,  for  no  man 
can  claim  infallibility.  No  man  or  Church  can  claim  to  have 
escaped  failure  in  a  single  doctrine,  for  no  man  or  Church  is  infalli- 
ble in  a  single  doctrine.  No  Christian  communion  can  maintain 
that  its  system  as  a  whole  or  in  any  one  part  is  free  from  error,  for 
no  particular  Church  is  infallible,  either  in  its  total  doctrine  or  in  a 
single  doctrine.  Nor  are  all  particular  Christian  Churches  together 
infallible,  even  in  the  doctrine  they  hold  in  common  or  in  any  one 


T  XXXIX  Articles  of  Church  of  England.     Art.  xix. 


DR.    KKAUTH  S    ESSAY.  57 

article.  You  may  multiply  or  divide  the  zero  of  fallibility  any 
number  of  times,  and  it  never  makes  infallibility.  We  end  where 
we  begari.  No  Church  on  earth,  by  this  line  of  reasoning,  nor  all 
Churches  on  earth  together,  can  claim  to  have  reached  unmixed 
truth  in  whole  or  in  part,  for  they  are  each  and  all  fallible. 

It  is  a  principle  of  law  that  no  man  shall  be  arrested  on  a  general 
warrant,  or  condemned  on  a  general  charge.  A  man  is  neither  seized 
nor  convicted  on  the  general  charge  of  being  a  thief.  His  warrant 
and  conviction  must  distinctly  state  what  he  has  stolen,  and  he  must 
have  been  convicted  on  many  particular  charges  before  he  is  even 
watched  as  a  professional  thief  No  man  has  a  right  to  treat  our 
Church  as  the  law  would  not  permit  him  to  treat  a  suspected  thief. 
No  man  has  a  right  to  bring  against  our  Church  the  general  charge 
that  she  claims  infallibility,  without  specifying  when  and  where  and 
how  she  claims  it.  The  charge  is  wholly  untrue.  It  is  made  gen- 
eral because  an  attempt  to  make  it  particular  would  at  once  reveal 
the  falsehood.  She  does  not  claim  infallibility.  She  distinctly 
repudiates  it. 

But  neither  has  any  man  the  right  to  convict  her  on  the  general 
charge  that  she  makes  a  groundless  claim  not  to  have  failed.  He  is 
bound  to  specify  in  what  she  has  failed.  Put  your  finger  on  the  doc- 
trine in  which  you  pretend  she  has  failed,  and  prove  that  she  has 
done  it,  or  grant  her  claim  not  to  have  failed. 

It  is  another  sound  principle  of  law  that  when  testimony  is  con- 
formed to  the  proper  demands  of  evidence,  that  where  the  witness 
cannot  be  shown  to  have  deviated  in  any  respect  from  the  truth,  no 
one  has  the  right  to  attempt  to  set  aside  that  specific  testimony  on 
the  general  ground  that  all  men  are  liable  to  mistake.  It  must  be 
shown  in  what  he  has  made  a  mistake,  or  his  evidence  stands.  In  a 
court  the  power  of  testimony  does  not  depend  upon  the  assumption 
that  it  can  be  infallible,  but  on  the  evidence  that  in  fact  it  can  be  so 
guarded  as  not  to  fail. 

Now  to  take  up  the  particular  points.  We  meet  here  as  true 
Catholic  Christians,  so  far  as  assent  to  the  general  creeds  is  con- 
cerned. It  will  not  be  necessary,  therefore,  to  show  that  in  reassert- 
ing the  great  doctrines  of  the  General  Creeds,  our  Church  has  not 
erred.  We  are  here  as  Protestants.  It  will  not  therefore  be  neces- 
sary to  argue  that  in  what  she  asserts  and  denies  over  against  dis- 
tinctive Romanism,  our  Church  has  not  erred.  We  are  here  as 
5 


58  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Lutherans  in  claim.  Is  it  consistent  with  that  name  that  we  should 
think  that  our  Church  has  erred  in  whole  or  in  part  over  against  any 
or  all  of  the  non-Lutheran  Protestant  systems  ?  We  have  supposed 
that  their  existence  separate  from  us  rested  on  the  claim  that  they  had 
not  erred,  where  we  have  erred;  and  that  on  the  other  hand  a  Lutheran 
was  one  who  held  that  we  have  not  erred, where  they  have  erred.  They 
say  that  we  have  failed,  and  they  have  not.  We  say  they  have  failed 
and  we  have  not.  They  hold  us  responsible  for  our  failures,  as  we 
hold  them  responsible  for  their  own.  But  the  whole  attitude  of  all  the 
Churches  is  really  the  same  to  the  main  question  here.  It  is  that 
they  who  rightly  approach  the  Word  of  God,  need  not  fail  and  will 
not  fail ;  that  is,  that  in  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  as  really  possible  to 
avoid  failure  on  the  points  of  confessional  difference  as  on  the  points 
of  confessional  agreement.  The  man  who  calls  himself  a  Lutheran 
as  a  means  of  testifying  his  conviction  that  Lutheranism  is  wrong,  is 
like  a  man  who  assumes  the  title  of  a  Christian  that  all  men  may 
thereby  know  that  he  is  a  Jew. 

Nevertheless,  there  have  been  men  on  both  sides  the  sea,  who  with- 
in our  Church,  accepting  its  privileges,  the  honor  of  its  name,  per- 
haps eating  its  bread,  have  met  the  challenge  to  specification.  Some 
on  the  broad  ground  of  Rationalism  have  said,  The  Lutheran  Church 
has  failed  in  the  very  fundamentals  of  rehgion — the  doctrine  of  God, 
of  Sin,  of  Salvation,  and  of  the  Saviour.  She  ought  to  have  been 
Socinian  and  Universalist.  There  is  no  line  possible  if  we  accept 
individualism  as  the  test.  If  a  man  can  be  a  Lutheran  who  thinks 
our  Church  has  failed,  and  whose  guide  to  that  in  which  she  has  failed 
is  that  he  thinks  so,  where  can  you  stop  ?  If  Ave  admit  that  it  can 
be  done  with  one  article,  who  shall  settle  which  one  ?  If  with  more 
than  one,  how  many?  If  with  some,  why  not  with  all?  If  with  one 
set  this  year,  why  not  with  another  set  next  year?  And  this  is  no  log- 
ical imagining.  This  is  the  exact  ground  actually  taken  by  the  con- 
sistent men  of  the  position  of  which  we  now  speak.  There  is  no 
firm  ground  between  strict  confessionalism,  and  no  confessionalism. 
All  between  is  hopeless  inconsistency. 

We  think  that  on  every  point  on  which  our  Church's  faith  has 
been  challenged,  it  can  be  triumphantly  sustained.  But  that  is  not 
the  point  here.  Let  us  suppose  the  objector  to  say,  "The  Lutheran 
Church  has  failed  on  the  person  of  Christ,  on  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's 
Supper."  He  can  only  know  she  is  wrong  on  these  points  by  knowing 


DR.    KRAUTH  S    ESSAY.  59 

himself  what  is  right — what  is  the  right  doctrine,  where  hers  is  wrong. 
He  says,  in  effect,  "The  Lutheran  Church  is  not  infalHble,  but  I 
am" — or  more  modestly,  "  The  Lutheran  Church  has  failed,  but  I 
have  not.  The  Lutheran  Church  is  wrong,  but  I  can  set  her  right." 
The  whole  thing  means,  "  She  fails  when  she  don't  agree  with  me, 
and  she  is  infallibly  right  when  she  does."  It  is  the  transparent 
self-conceit  of  individualism. 

It  is  very  preposterous  to  say  that  our  Church  may  without  claim- 
ing infallibility  justly  claim  not  to  have  failed  in  ninety-nine  points, 
and  yet  that  to  claim  that  she  is  right  on  the  hundredth  point  is  to 
claim  infallibility.  Especially  is  this  the  case  if  the  hundredth  point 
is  reached  by  the  same  processes  of  interpretation  by  which  the 
ninety-nine  have  been  reached.  If  we  may  summarily  dismiss  the 
assertion  of  a  doctrine  of  our  Church,  because  our  Church  is  not 
infallible,  we  can  just  as  summarily  dismiss  the  rejection  of  it  by 
another  Church,  because  that  Church  is  not  infallible.  Infallibility . 
is  just  as  much  required  for  unchallenged  rejection  as  for  unchal- 
lenged acceptance.  He  who  can  infallibly  know  every  part  of  the 
wrong  of  every  question,  can  infallibly  know  the  right  of  it — for 
truth  and  error  are  eternal  antitheses — correlates,  the  knowledge  of 
wMch  is  one. 

*^ Methods''  of  Romanism. 
This  whole  style  of  dispensing  with  particular  proof  is  exactly  in 
the  line  and  spirit  of  the  so-called  "Methods"  of  the  Romish  Po- 
lemics. One  method  was  to  reduce  the  whole  question  between 
Rome  and  Protestantism  to  the  point  of  antiquity  and  novelty  ;  an- 
other was  the  method  of  challenging  Protestants  to  proofs  from  the 
direct  words  of  Scripture  without  inference ;  another  was  the 
method  involved  in  the  question,  Where  was  your  Church  before 
Luther  ?  another  method  was  to  assume  that  an  inspired  Rule  was 
useless  without  an  inspired  interpreter ;  another  was  the  method  of 
prescription  and  possession  ;  another  was  the  method  of  urging  the 
visible  Church  as  the  Catholic  Church ;  another  was  the  method  of 
safety — we  Romanists  deny  that  salvation  is  possible  with  you,  you 
admit  that  it  is  possible  with  us ;  there  was  also  the  method  of  au- 
thority, and  the  method  of  non-fundamental  difference  between 
Rome  and  Protestantism.  These  methods  proposed  to  do  away  with 
all  particular  investigation,  all  proof  from  facts,  by  establishing  or 
assuming  some  one  theoretic,  general  principle.     These  methods 


60  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

with  all  their  variety,  had  the  common  feature  that  they  proposed  to 
argue  without  reason,  and  to  reason  without  argument,  and  can  be 
reduced  to  the  common  foundation  that  Rome  was  to  be  made  judge 
in  her  own  case. 

The  One  Method. 

Now  over  against  all  these  methods,  genuine  Protestantism  has 
but  one  method — the  method  of  examination — honest,  thorough  in- 
vestigation. "Search"  and  "Try"  are  divine  injunctions.  But 
it  is  a  Romish  method  to  the  core,  in  defiance  of  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  Protestantism,  to  get  rid  of  the  claim  which  a 
Church  makes  of  purity  in  every  one  of  her  doctrines,  not  by  par- 
ticular proof  that  some  of  her  doctrines  are  false,  but  by  a  general 
appeal  to  fallibility.  Fallibility  is  not  failure.  To  show  a  general 
possibility  of  it  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  very  different  from 
showing  an  actual  result.  Fallibility  implies  that  we  may  fail  or 
may  not  fail.  Possibility  involves  that  a  result  may  be  or  its  con- 
trary may  be.  To  settle  which  has  actually  been  reached  requires 
particular  evidence.  Our  Church  therefore  proposes — not  like 
Rome,  by  a  claim  to  infallibility,  but  by  a  particular  proof  in  each 
case — to  show  that  she  has  not  failed.  The  only  way  to  confute 
her,  if  she  can  be  confuted,  is  to  take  up  the  alleged  mistake  and 
prove  it  to  be  such. 

^^  Agnosticism.^^ 

Our  Church  does  indeed  rest  her  relations  to  the  denominations 
around  us  on  her  conviction  that  her  system  is  in  all  its  parts  divine, 
derived  from  the  Word  of  God  and  in  accordance  with  it.  And  there 
are  those  who  object  to  this  position,  not  that  they  charge  any  spe- 
cific error  on  our  Church — they  waive  even  the  consideration  of  that 
question — but  that  in  general  they  assume  that  we  are  not  prepared  to 
treat  any  system  as  throughout  divine.  A  system,  they  say,  may  be 
divine,  but  we  cannot  know  that  it  is.  We  see  in  part,  we  know  in 
part.  It  is  not  probable  that  any  one  denomination  has  all  the  truth 
on  the  mooted  questions.  We  think  we  are  right.  Others  think  they 
are  right,  and  they  are  as  much  entitled  to  assert  the  possession  of 
truth  for  themselves  as  we  are  for  ourselves.  The  Church  is  still 
seeking  :  the  Church  of  the  unknown  future  may  perhaps  see  things 
in  their  true  light. 

This  is  bringing  into  theology  what  is  a  pet  theory  of  the  philoso- 
phy of  our  day  under  the  title  "Agnosticism" — which  presses  our 


DR.  krauth's  essay.  6i 

ignorance  until  it  makes  of  it  a  sort  of  omniscience  of  negation. 
There  are  no  such  vices  in  the  world  as  the  affectations  of  virtue. 
Sanctimony  apes  sanctity,  prudery  modesty,  masked  egotism  hu- 
mility— and  on  the  basis  of  universal  ignorance  a  man  offers  himself 
as  a  universal  sage,  and  systematizes  ignorance  in  many  volumes. 

It  is  true  that  the  Church  on  earth  is  imperfect,  and  that  in  her 
best  life,  and  because  of  it,  she  ever  grows.  But  she  must  have  a 
complete  life  to  have  a  constant  growth.  An  acorn  is  not  an  oak, 
but  the  vital  force  in  the  acorn  is  that  which  makes  the  oak  and 
abides  in  it.  The  question  here  is,  Has  the  Church  reached  such  a 
clear,  binding  faith  on  the  great  vital  questions,  not  only  of  individual 
salvation  but  of  her  own  highest  efficiency  and  well-being,  as  justifies 
her  in  making  them  a  term  of  communion  and  of  public  teaching  ? 
The  question  is  not  whether  she  can  reach  more  truth,  or  apply 
more  widely  the  truth  she  has,  but  whether  what  she  now  holds  is 
truth,  and  whether  seeking  more  truth  by  the  same  methods  she  can 
be  assured  of  finding  it. 

The  Old  Testament  has  been  teaching  for  thousands  of  years  ;  the 
New  Testament  has  taught  for  two  thousand  years ;  and  yet  it  is  pre- 
tended by  those  who  profess  to  hold  the  clearness  and  sufficiency  of 
Holy  Scripture,  that  no  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  not  even  that 
part  which  they  declare  they  hold  in  highest  esteem,  has  reached  a 
witness  which  can  commend  itself  to  human  trust,  or  can  tell  whether 
it  has  failed  or  not.  Then  there  is  not  a  man  on  earth  who  has  any 
choice  except  as  between  systems  either  of  certain  or  of  possible  error. 
He  cannot  build  up  unmixed  truth  anywhere.  He  cannot  build  up 
truth  without  building  up  error.  He  is  sowing  seed,  and  may  be 
sowing  tares.  He  is  trying  to  pluck  up  weeds,  and  may  be  pulling 
up  the  grain.  He  cannot  do  the  Lord's  work  without  doing  part  of 
the  devil's  work.  If  the  divine  truth  has  no  self-asserting  power, 
sufficient  to  dispel  doubt,  how  shall  we  reach  any  sure  ground? 
Shall  we  say  that  all  nominally  Christian  systems  are  alike  in  value, 
or  that  if  they  differ  in  this  no  one  can  find  it  out  ?  This  on  its 
face  seems  self-confuting,  but  if  we  had  to  confute  it,  we  could  only 
do  so  by  showing  that  God's  Word  is  clear  on  the  points  on  which 
Churches  differ.  If  we  do  not  believe  that  we  are  scriptural  over 
against  Rome,  we  have  no  right  to  be  separate  from  Rome.  If  the 
Churches  divided  from  us  do  not  believe  that  they  are  scriptural,  they 
have  no  right  to  be  divided  from  us ;  and  if  we  have  no  assured  con- 


62  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

viction  that  we  have  the  truth,  we  have  no  right  to  exist.  This  Agnos- 
ticism is  at  heart  unbehef,  or  despair,  or  indolence,  or  evasion  of 
cogent  argument. 

Romanizing  Tendency. 
Of  all  Romanizing  tendencies  the  most  absolute  is  that  which 
puts  the  dishonor  on  God's  Word,  and  on  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  the  Reformation,  implied  in  this  view.  It  may  be  safely  as- 
serted that  ecclesiastical  bodies  will  not  claim  less  for  themselves 
than  they  are  entitled  to,  and  when  it  shall  be  said  that  no  part  of 
the  churches  of  which  the  Reformation  was  the  cause  or  occasion, 
even  pretends  to  have  an  assurance  of  the  whole  faith  it  confesses, 
then  will  men  regard  Protestantism  as  self-convicted,  and  if  they  do 
not  swing  off  to  infidelity,  will  say :  Rome  at  least  claims  to  have 
the  truth,  and  if  truth  is  to  be  found  on  earth,  it  is  more  likely  to 
be  found  with  those  who  claim  to  have  it,  than  with  those  who 
admit  they  have  it  not.  To  sum  up,  we  say  Rome  is  fallible,  the 
Denominations  are  fallible,  and  the  Lutheran  Church  is  fallible  : 
but  the  Romish  Church  has  failed  in  Articles  of  Faith,  so  have  the 
Denominations;  the  Lutheran  Church  has  not. 

Donatism. 
Fourth  :  Our  Church  in  her  relations  to  the  denominations 
around  us  occupies  no  Donatistic  attitude.  "They  condemn  the 
Donatists,"  says  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology, -"and  others 
like  them,  who  denied  that  it  is  lawful  to  use  the  ministry  of  evil 
men  in  the  Church,  and  hold  that  the  ministry  of  the  evil  is  useless 
and  inefficient,"  "and  that  men  sin  who  receive  the  sacraments  in 
the  Church  from  unworthy,  ungodly  ministers."  "  Christ  hath 
admonished  us  in  his  discourses  of  the  Church,  that  we  are  not,  be- 
cause we  are  offended  at  the  private  faults  either  of  priests  or  people, 
to  excite  schisms  or  separation  as  the  Donatists  wickedly  did." 
All  this  means  that  personal  excellencies  do  not  make  official  acts, 
nor  do  personal  defects  mar  their  validity.  God's  pure  Word  at  the 
lips  of  a  bad  man  remains  God's  Word ;  error  at  the  lips  of  a  good 
man  remains  error  still.  The  Word  bears  the  power,  the  man  does 
not.  Pure  gold  in  a  polluted  hand  is  pure  gold  still,  and  the  brassy 
counterfeit,  however  clean  and  fair  the  hand  which  brings  it,  is 
brass  still.  In  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  Donatism,  to  apply  it  to 
Lutheranism  is  not  onlv  unfounded  but  ridiculous. 


DR.    KRAUTII'S    ESSAY,  6$ 

Exchisiveness. 

That  the  Lutheran  Church  has  no  narrow  segregative  spirit  like 
that  of  the  Donatists,  has  x\o  false  exclusiveness,  will  be  manifest  to 
any  one  who  knows  her  history,  and  her  principles.  We  say  a  false 
exclusiveness,  for  there  is  a  true  exclusiveness  which  pertains  to  the 
nature  of  all  truth,  and  most  of  all  to  Christianity,  because  it  is  the 
supreme  truth.  Because  it  is  divine  it  is  exclusive  of  all  that  is  not 
divine.  Those  who  separate  themselves  from  us  in  our  truth  com- 
pel us  to  be  separate  from  them  in  their  error. 

"Exclusiveness,"  says  D'Aubigne,  "  is  a  character  of  Lutheran- 
ism... This  exclusiveness  is  necessary  to  unity.  It  must  enter  into 
the  construction  of  the  admirable  machine  prepared  by  the  hand  of 
the  great  Artificer  three  centuries  ago.  Exclusiveness  is  essential  to 
the  Church.  Who  was  more  exclusive  than  he  who  said,  '  No  one 
Cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  tne ;  '  and  again,  '  Without  me,  ye  can 
do  nothing.'  The  Church  ought  to  have  a  holy  jealousy  for  the 
eternal  truth  of  God  ;  for  latitudinarianism  is  its  death.  The  his- 
tory of  all  ages  has  demonstrated  this  fact,  and  nothing  could 
demonstrate  it  more  clearly  than  the  history  of  our  own.  This  ex- 
clusiveness was  what  was  confided  to  the  charge  of  Martin  Luther... 
Luther  believed  that  the  corporeal  presence  was  God's  truth,  and 
he  went  out  of  himself  for  that  truth.  Thou  didst  well,  O  great 
Luther  ! . .  .God  gives  us,  what  thou  didst  not  understand,  to  treat  with 
mildness  those  who  differ  from  us  in  opinion.  But  God  grant  at 
the  same  time,  as  with  thee,  that  the  rights  of  the  truth  inspire  us, 
and  the  zeal  of  God's  house  eat  us  up."  And  this  is  D'Aubigne's 
concession  to  the  exclusiveness  which  he  is  attacking. 

The  animus  of  Donatism,  whether  in  its  specific  error  or  in  its 
general  narrowness  of  spirit,  is  not  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  in  the 
fanatical  sects,  who  confound  the  visible  with  the  invisible,  and  by  a 
coercive  and  legalistic  discipline  attempt  and  pretend  to  have  a 
ministry  and  communion  of  none  but  saints.  The  pretences  of  a 
more  rigid  discipline  have  originated  many  of  the  sects,  which, 
swelling  at  their  first  ardor  till  they  burst  the  bulb,  are  found  now 
on  the  ground  frozen  and  fixed  below  zero. 

There  is  no  body  of  Christians  on  earth  more  remote  from  all  the 
pretences  of  Donatism,  in  its  letter  or  its  spirit,  than  the  Lutheran 
Church.  There  is  none  which  is  so  large  and  liberal  in  all  things, 
which  are  really  in  the  sphere  of  the  liberty  of  the  Church.    Contrast 


64  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

her  largeness  of  view  in  things  indifferent  with  the  pitiful  littleness 
of  ultra  Puritanism  on  the  one  side,  of  Romish  and  Puseyistic  Ritual- 
ism on  the  other.  Mark  her  scriptural  candor  in  regard  to  special 
forms  of  Church  government  as  one  example  of  a  spirit  illustrated 
in  manifold  forms.  Our  Church  is  inflexible  in  nothing  but  in  the 
pure  Word  and  pure  Sacraments,  and  in  what  they  involve. 

"  Close  Communion.'''' 

Fifth  :  The  relations  of  our  Church  to  the  denominations  around 
us  are  not  those  of  a  communion  which  is  close,  in  any  sense  in 
which  God's  Word  enjoins  that  the  communion  shall  be  open.  A 
Christian  communion  must  in  some  sense  be  a  close  communion  to 
be  Christian  at  all — close  from  heresy,  avowed  and  organized 
error ;  close  from  refusal  to  receive  the  gospel  with  a  teachable 
spirit ;  close  from  those  who  reject  the  scriptural  discipline  and  con- 
trol of  the  Church.  The  first  communion  was  close  communion. 
None  were  admitted  to  it  but  tested  disciples — open  confessors  of 
Christ.  No  leaders  or  members  of  hostile  or  contesting  organiza- 
tions were  there.  Judas  was  there,  but  Judas  was  a  professor  of 
discipleship;  his  profession  was  credible,  his  unworthiness  unknown, 
except  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts.  It  may  be  that  our  all-knowing 
Saviour  would,  in  the  very  admission  of  Judas,  teach  us  that  we  are 
to  guide  ourselves  in  discipline  by  what  we  know,  and  not  by  what 
we  assume  or  conjecture  the  omniscient  knows,  whether  of  good  or 
evil,  in  men. 

In  the  Apostolic  Church  all  confessed  rejectors  of  the  Apostolic 
doctrine — all  heretics,  schismatists  and  fomenters  of  faction,  or 
those  who  were  joined  with  them,  were  cut  off  from  the  commun- 
ion of  the  Church.  Heresy  in  the  New  Testament  is  whatever  de- 
stroys the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  by  pre-eminence, 
false  doctrine,  which  is  its  greatest  divider.  No  Church  received 
or  retained  communicants  who  were  not  subject  to  its  discipline. 
As  Apostolic  pulpits  were  for  Apostolic  doctrine  alone,  so  were 
Apostolic  altars  for  those  alone  who  were  disciples  of  Apostolic  doc- 
trine, and  subject  to  Apostolic  discipline. 

"  Close  Communion'"  in  the  Ancient  Church. 
The  ancient  Church  of  post-Apostolic  times  rigorously  confined  its 
pulpits  and  altars  to  these  who  were  attested  and  approved  as  in  the 
unity  of  the  faith.     "In  the  primitive  Church,"  says  Lord  Chancellor 


DR.  krauth's  essay.  6$ 

King,  in  his  classical  work,  "the  Unity  of  the  Church  Universal  con- 
sisted in  an  Harmonious  Assent  to  the  Essential  Articles  of  Religion, 
or  in  an  Unanimous  Agreement  in  the  Fundamentals  of  Faith  and 
Doctrine.  The  corruption  of  that  doctrine  was  a  breach  of  that  unity, 
and  whosoever  so  broke  it,  are  said  to  divide  and  separate  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  or  which  is  all  one,  to  be  schismaticks.  If  we  con- 
sider the  word  Church  as  denoting  a  collection  of  many  particular 
churches,  its  unity  may  (be  said  to)  have  consisted  in  a  brotherly 
correspondence  with  and  affection  toward  each  other,  which  they 
demonstrated  by  all  outward  expressions  of  Love  and  Concord,  only 
receiving  to  Communion  the  members  of  each  other. "^  The  conces- 
sion that  two  conflicting  Christian  churches  can,  with  co-ordinate  right 
and  Avithout  the  violation  of  fraternity,  occupy  the  same  locality^ 
was  simply  impossible  to  the  early  Christian  mind.  The  separation 
of  admission  to  privilege  and  of  subjection  to  discipline  would  have 
been  looked  upon  with  horror.  The  discipline  was  strict — and  ex- 
communication from  one  particular  Church  was  confirmed  all  the 
world  over.  The  inestimable  right  to  communion  in  one  Church  in- 
volved a  right  to  communion  in  all,  on  proper  testing  and  authenti- 
cation. The  cutting  off  from  a  communion  in  one  was  a  cutting  off 
from  all.  No  Christian  traveling  was  admitted  to  communion  ih  any 
Church  in  which  he  might  be  sojourning,  unless  he  had  written  official 
evidence  of  his  being  in  full  communion  with  the  Church  at  home. 
There  could  be  no  "interdenominational"  communion,  for  there  were 
no  denominations.  The  ancient  Church  knew  of  nothing  between 
the  Church  on  the  one  side,  and  sect,  schism,  heresy  on  the  other.* 
None  were  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  but  those  in  full  com- 
munion, and  after  the  doors  of  the  Church  were  carefully  shut  and 
watched,  the  deacon  made  a  proclamation,  describing  the  classes  of 
persons  who  were  not  suffered  to  remain  as  communicants.  These 
were  the  unbaptized,  the  catechumens,  the  ordinary  hearers,  unbe- 
lievers, and  last  of  all,  those  of  another  faith,  the  heterodox,  either 
reputed  heretics  or  false  teachers,  separatists  or  those  under  discipline. 

Christian  Love. 
Sixth  :  The  relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the  denomina- 
tions around  it  are  not  in  conflict  with  true  Christian  love.     On  the 

8  Primitive  Church,  ch.  ix. 

»  Baumgarten,  Christlich.  AlterthUmer  (Bertram).  Ilalle,  1768,  506-513.     . 


66  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

contrary  they  are  in  the  highest  harmony  with  it.  She  feels  com- 
pelled indeed  to  contend  for  the  truth,  but  it  is  in  love.  The 
wounds  she  gives  are  the  faithful  wounds  of  a  friend.  That  is  better 
than  the  deceitful  kisses  of  an  enemy.  "Am  I  therefore  become  your 
enemy"  says  St.  Paul,  "because  I  tell  you  the  truth?"  "Have  no  fel- 
lowship with  the  unfruitful  works  of  darkness,  but  rather  reprove 
them."  All  error,  heresy,  schism,  separatism,  belong  to  the  works 
of  darkness  Sectarianism  is  a  work  of  darkness,  though  particular 
members  of  sects  may  be  children  of  God.'° 

"Fo/icy." 

Seventh  :  The  proper  relations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the 
denominations  around  us  are  not  really  impolitic,  are  not  in  conflict 
with  her  duty  of  self-preservation  and  of  self-extension.  Of  a 
fleshly  policy  which  courts  worldly  success  by  deviation  from  prin- 
ciple, I  need  not  speak,  because,  a  Christian  man,  I  address  Chris- 
tian men.  The  presentation  of  an  argument  for  such  policy  would 
be  impossible  to  me,  intolerable  to  you.  Let  such  policy  go. 
Whether  it  be  the  policy  of  the  Devil  or  of  Caesar,  and  whether 
Caesar  be  a  single  tyrant,  or  a  mob  of  tyrants,  let  us  stand  with 
Christ  against  both  Devil  and  Caesar.  There  was  but  one  apostle  who 
pursued  a  policy  by  which  he  made  earthly  gain  of  his  relation  to 
Christ.     Let  us  not  stand  with  him. 

In  this  aspect  the  case  is  too  plain.  Even  the  presentation  of  an 
argument  against  such  policy  would  be  worse  than  useless.  But 
the  policy  consistent  with  true  wisdom,  and  pure  motive,  high 
ends,  and  lofty  means,  and  indeed  the  embodiment  of  them,  is  not 
in  conflict  with  that  attitude  of  our  Church  which,  we  have  tried  to 
show,  consistency  demands.  When  the  Lutheran  Church  acts  in 
the  spirit  of  the  current  denominationalism  she  abandons  her  own 
spirit.  She  is  a  house  divided  against  itself.  Some  even  then 
will  stand  firm,  and  with  the  choosing  of  new  gods  on  the  part  of 
others  there  will  be  war  in  the  gates. 

No  seeming  success  could  compensate  our  Church  for  the  forsak- 
ing of  the  principles  which  gave  her  being,  for  the  loss  of  internal 
peace,  for  the  destruction  of  her  proper  dignity,  for  the  lack  of  self- 
respect  which  would  follow  it.  The  Lutheran  Church  can  never 
have  real  moral  dignity,  real  self-respect,  a  real  claim  on  the  rever- 
ence and  loyalty  of  her  children,  while  she  allows  the  fear  of  the  de- 

1?  See  Theses  on  the  Galesburg  Declaration. 


DR,    KRAUTH's    essay.  6^ 

nominations  around  her,  or  the  desire  of  their  approval,  in  any 
respect  to  shape  her  principles  or  control  her  actions.  It  is  a  fatal 
thing  to  ask,  not,  What  is  right  ?  What  is  consistent? — but,  What  will 
be  thought  of  us  ?  How  will  the  sectarian  and  secular  papers  talk 
about  us?  How  will  our  neighbors  of  the  different  communions 
regard  this  or  that  course  ?  Better  to  die  than  to  prolong  a  miser- 
able life  by  such  compromise  of  all  that  gives  life  its  value.  This 
dangerous  tendency  has  been  fostered  by  some  parts  of  our  Church 
accepting  pecuniary  aid  from  denominational  sources.  They  have 
been  taking  bribes,  and  selling  a  sort  of  control  to  those  whose 
charity  they  accepted.  Then  comes  naturally  the  next  Scene  in 
the  Farce — the  benefactors  are  implored  not  to  impute  to  the  mild, 
liberal  part  of  our  Church  (which  accepts  sectarian  alms)  what  is 
really  the  spirit  only  of  a  few  bigots  unworthy  of  the  name  of 
Lutheran.  We  have  among  us  a  sort  of  charity  which  not  only  does 
not  begin  at  home,  but  never  gets  there.  It  is  soaring  and  gaspmg 
for  the  Unity  of  Lutherans  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  but  not 
with  each  other.  It  can  forgive  all  the  sects  for  assailing  the  truth, 
but  has  no  mercy  for  the  Lutherans  who  defend  it. 

When  there  is  official  fellowship  between  those  who  hold  the 
higher  and  positive  position,  and  those  who  hold  a  lower  and  nega- 
tive one,  the  communion  is  always  to  the  benefit  of  the  lower  at  the 
expense  of  the  higher.  For  however  the  holders  of  the  higher  view 
may  protest  as  to  their  personal  convictions,  the  act  of  communion  is 
regarded  as  a  concession  that  the  convictions,  if  held  at  all,  are  not 
held  as  articles  of  faith,  but  only  as  opinions.  If  a  SocinJan  and  a 
Trinitarian  commune,  each  avowing  his  own  opinion  as  not 
changed,  nor  involved,  which  cause  is  hurt  and  which  benefited? 
It  looks  equal;  but  Socinianism,  whose  interest  is  laxity,  is  advant- 
aged, Trinitarianism  is  wounded.  It  gives  fresh  life  to  error,  it 
stabs  truth  to  the  heart. 

Contact  imparts  disease,  but  does  not  impart  health.  We  catch 
small-pox  by  contact  with  one  who  has  it,  but  we  do  not  catch 
recovery  from  one  who  is  free  from  it.  The  process  which  tends  to 
the  pollution  of  the  unpolluted  will  not  tend  to  the  purification  of 
the  evil.  "  If  one  bear  holy  flesh  in  the  skirt  of  his  garment,  and 
with  his  skirt  do  touch  bread  or  pottage,  or  wine  or  oil,  or  any 
meat,  shall  it  be  holy  ?  And  the  priests  answered  and  said,  No. 
Then  said  Haggai,  If  one  that  is  unclean  by  a  dead  body,  touch  any 


68  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET 

of  them,  shall  it  be  unclean  ?  And  the  priests  answered,  //  shall 
be  unclean^ 

When  the  transfer  is  made  easy  between  zuealthy  denominations 
and  poor  ones,  many  go  out  of  the  poor  church  into  the  rich  one, 
few  from  the  rich  to  the  poor.  The  Lord  chooses  the  poor  of  this 
world ;  but  many  of  his  nominal  disciples  seem  to  think  they  can 
— so  far  at  least— improve  on  their  Master's  example. 

When  the  transfer  is  made  easy  between  churches  of  great  social 
pretension  and  those  of  humbler  claims  in  the  world  of  fashion,  the 
people  who  are  feeling  after  social  recognition  go  into  the  fashion- 
able church,  the  people  of  the  fashionable  church  stay  where  they 
are. 

When  churches  which  have  the  nationality ,  language,  tradition, 
modes  of  feeling  and  of  acting,  of  a  country,  are  separated  by 
low  walls  from  churches  of  other  nationalities,  largely  using  another 
tongue,  having  another  culture,  the  churches  of  the  country  absorb 
those  that  are  foreign.  To  introduce  the  language  of  the  country 
into  the  foreign  churches  reaches  but  a  part  of  the  difficulty,  and 
brings  in  another.  For  back  of  the  language,  to  those  to  whom  it 
is  native,  are  the  whole  history,  and  life,  and  literature  it  embodies ; 
while  the  foreign  church  must  use  the  lip  of  one  land  for  a  soul  and 
heart  which  are  of  another.  Our  Church  may  speak  English.  It 
is  well.  But  if  she  stops  with  that,  her  new  tongue  will  decoy  her 
into  a  new  life.  All  living  tongues  have  living  hearts  back  of 
them  and  carry  us  out  into  the  current  of  their  own  life.  Our 
church  is  not  to  become  the  handmaiden  of  the  language,  instead  of 
making  it  her  own  handmaiden.  It  will  in  that  case  not  be  the  old 
Church  getting  a  new  language,  but  the  new  language  transforming 
her  into  a  new  Church — not  the  Church  mastering  the  English,  but 
the  English  mastering  the  Church.  Even  in  their  mistakes  on  the 
point  of  language,  our  fathers  in  America  were  not  the  absolute 
incapables  it  is  now  the  fashion  to  consider  them.  It  was  the 
English  life  of  the  land,  rather  than  the  English  tongue,  which 
swept  away  thousands  of  our  Church's  children. 

When  churches  whose  principles  involve  lax  doctrinal  obligations 
come  in  contact  with  those  whose  principles  involve  strict  doctrinal 
obligations,  but  whose  practice  is  at  war  with  their  principles,  the 
lax  with  the  lax  practice  overcome  the  churches  which  have  strict 
theory  conjoined  with  lax  practice.  For  such  churches  are  burdened 
with  the  odium  of  their  strict  theory  without  its  advantages,  and 


DR.    KRAUTH's     essay.  69 

get  the  weakness  of  laxity  without  sharing  its  popularity.  Men 
who  aim  at  combining  in  a  third  view  the  strong  points  of  conflict- 
ing systems,  generally  get  the  weakness  of  principle  from  the  wrong, 
and  the  unpopularity  of  practice  from  the  right.  They  think  they 
can  sit  on  the  two  stools — in  fact  they  fall  between  them. 

But  when  a  church  has  right  principles  and  is  steadfast  to  them, 
no  matter  what  denominations  are  arrayed  against  it,  it  will  have 
true  success.  It  will  be  dear  to  God,  precious  to  those  who  love 
Him,  a  safe  guide  of  sinners  to  the  Saviour,  and  will  build  up  saints 
on  their  most  holy  faith.  It  will  be  a  conservator  of  sound  doc- 
trine, of  right  government,  of  healthy  discipline.  It  may  not  be 
fashionable,  rich,  or  popular,  but  it  will  be  a  blessing  to  the  world 
and  a  nursery  for  heaven. 

Adjourned. 


SECOND   SESSION. 


December  27th,  2:30  p.  m. 

Prayer  by  President  Sadtler,  D.  D.,  of  Muhlenberg  College. 

The  Diet  proceeded  to  the  discussion  of  Dr.  Krauth's  paper. 

Rev.  D.  P.  Rosenmiller  (General  Synod)  said  that  the  relation  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  to  other  denominations  who  hold  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  should  be  one  of  kindness  and 
charity.  They  are  the  different  branches  of  the  same  family  of  the 
living  God.  The  name  Lutheran,  applied  to  our  Church,  was  an 
accident,  resulting  partly  from  its  enemies.  The  original  name  was 
Evangelical ;  for  it  was  no  new  organization,  but  the  Church  sepa- 
rated from  the  errors  of  the  Papacy.  Even  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion came  into  existence  accidentally.  Had  there  been  no  indict- 
ment brought  by  the  Papal  Court,  against  the  friends  of  evangelical 
religion,  there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  the  Confession.  In 
that  case,  the  Bible  would  have  been  our  only  Confession.  For  the 
main  point  with  Luther  was  to  give  the  Church  the  Word  of  God 
as  her  guide ;  and  hence  all  who  hold  it  sincerely,  without  gross 
heterodoxy,  should  receive  charity  from  us. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  C.  W.  SCHAEFFER,  D.  D.  {General  Council) 
The  relations  of  Lutherans  to  the  members  of  the  denominations 
around,  as  far  as  these  relations  are  personal  or  social,  ought  to  be 
kindly,  and  controlled  by  Christian  principles.  But  when  these  rela- 
tions enter  into  the  sphere  of  the  Church ,  and  influence  the  Confes- 
sion of  Christian  doctrine,  then  the  first  and  highest  aim  of 
Lutherans  should  be  to  maintain  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Word,  as 
expressed  in  the  Confessions. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  comes  up  so  often  that  I  would 
if  I  could,  avoid  it  now.  But  it  affords  such  a  good  illustration  of 
my  meaning  that  I  venture  to  introduce  it. 

(70) 


III 


DISCUSSION.  71 

The  doctrine  of  the  denominations  around  us  is  to  the  effect,  that 
the  chief  element,  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  is  a  mere  human  act,  a  devout  exercise  on  the  part  of  com- 
municants, in  which  they  bring  to  the  table  a  grateful  remembrance 
of  Christ,  and  by  eating  and  drinking  show  forth  His  death.  If 
this,  which  of  course  is  true,  were  the  whole  truth,  then  the  Luth- 
eran Church  ought  to,  and  without  doubt,  would,  most  heartily  and 
devoutly,  unite  in  the  Holy  Supper,  with  all  evangelical  denomi- 
nations, with  all  who  love  the  Lord ;  since  in  respect  to  a  grateful 
remembrance  of  Christ  and  a  devout  showing  forth  of  His  death, 
there  can  be  no  difference  between  those  who  believe  in  Him  and 
love  Him. 

But  the  Lutheran  Church  receives  from  the  divine  Word,  and  re- 
peats in  her  Confessions,  a  very  different  doctrine,  to  the  effect, 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  first  of  all  a  divine  act,  that  the  Lord 
Himself  is  the  chief  actor,  that  its  distinguishing  characteristic  con- 
sists of  what  the  Lord  gives  us,  and  we  only  receive  ;  that  what  He 
gives  us  is,  as  He  Himself  says.  His  body  and  His  blood  for  the 
forgiveness  of  our  sins,  and  that  what  He  thus  gives  us  in  the  bread 
and  wine,  is  not  given  and  cannot  be  received  in  any  other  place  or 
time  or  way,  than  at  the  Supper  of  the  Lord, 

Now  this  is  denied  by  the  denominations  around  us.  Some  state 
their  denial  in  one  form,  some  in  another.  Yet  though  differing 
among  themselves,  they  all  agree  in  a  decided  and  positive  denial  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

Supposing  then  that  the  Lutheran  Church  is  bound  to  maintain 
not  human  opinions,  but  what  it  accepts  as  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
Word,  how  can  Lutherans  unite,  in  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper, 
with  denominations  that  ignore  and  deny  what  the  divine  Word  de- 
clares is  the  distinguishing  feature  and  controlling  element  of  the 
Supper  itself?  Such  an  act  would  be  an  acknowledgment,  on  their 
part,  that  the  nature  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Supper  is  a  mat- 
ter of  no  consequence,  and  that  we  reach  the  full  measure  of  it 
when  we  observe  it  as  a  mere  mnemonic  act  of  our   own.     In  de- 


72  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

dining  such  communion,  Lutherans  do  not  deny  or  question  the 
evangehcal  character  of  denominations  around  them;  they  seek 
only  to  testify  their  fidehty  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Word. 

These  low  views  of  the  denominations,  tend  strongly,  and  quite 
naturally,  to  reduce  the  Holy  Supper  from  its  rightful  prominence  in 
the  Church's  life,  down  to  the  common  level  of  ordinary  devotional 
exercises.  I  find  in  a  theological  work  of  a  distinguished  divine,  of 
illustrious  name,  occupying  an  honorable  position  in  a  prominent 
Seminary  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  following  conclusion  ar- 
rived at: — "It  follows  that  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  done 
at  the  Lord's  Supper,  believers  do  receive  and  feed  upon  the  body 
and  the  blood  of  Christ,  at  other  times  without  the  use  of  the  sacra- 
ment, and  in  the  use  of  other  means  of  grace,  as  prayer,  meditation 
on  the  Word,  etc.,  etc."  With  such  views,  of  course,  the  Lutheran 
Church  can  have  no  sympathy  or  fellowship. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  F.  W.  CONRAD  D.  D.  {General  Syttod.) 
We  shrink  from  engaging  in  this  discussion  in  ten  minutes,  when 
six  hours  would  be  inadequate  to  do  justice  to  it.  We  do  not  ex- 
pect ever  to  be  "educated  up"  to  the  positions  taken  in  the  paper 
just  read.  The  degree  of  unanimity  of  sentiment  which  it  requires, 
is  practically  unattainable.  The  multiform  character  of  revelation, 
and  the  diverse  influences  under  which  Christians  have  been  reared 
and  lived,  renders  absolute  agreement  on  all  points  impossible.  To 
each  believer,  the  Bible  is  given,  and  he  is  directed  to  search  it — to 
every  disciple  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised,  and  he  is  per- 
mitted to  pray  for  His  enlightening  influences.  Through  these  and 
other  agencies  and  instrumentalities.  Christians  form  their  religious 
opinions.  But  while  true  believers  may  and  do  thus  come  to  an 
agreement  on  fundamental  doctrines,  they  will,  in  all  probability, 
differ  on  non-essential  points.  This  occurs  in  spite  of  their  sin- 
cerity, in  consequence  of  the  deterioration  of  the  human  reason. 
Their  religious  mistakes  must  not,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  willful 
errors,  neither  should  they,  on  this  account,  be  classed  with  heretics 
and  excluded  from  Church  fellowship. 


DISCUSSION.  73 

Martin  Luther  maintained  the  supreme  autliority  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  claimed  the  right  of  private  judgment  in  interpreting  them. 
He,  accordingly,  exercised  the  liberty  conferred  by  Christ  on  every 
believer,  and  formed  his  religious  opinions  in  independence  of  popes 
and  councils.  His  coadjutors  exercised  the  same  right,  and  formed 
their  own  religious  opinions.  On  all  essential  points  they  agreed ; 
on  many  non-essential  ones  they  differed ;  and  yet  they  extended 
the  hand  of  fellowship  to  each  other. 

In  the  exercise  of  the  same  rights  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  same 
liberty,  we,  Lutherans  in  America,  have  formed  our  ecclesiastical 
opinions.  On  all  undisputed  fundamental  doctrines  we  agree  ;  on 
manifestly  non-fundamental  ones  we  differ.  Let  us  not,  on  account 
of  our  differences,  withhold,  but  on  account  of  our  agreements,  ex- 
tend fellowship  to  each  other. 

Various  denominations  have  arisen,  in  the  providence  of  God,  in 
different  ages  and  lands.  They  constitute  the  pure  parts  of  the  one 
holy  catholic  Church.  They  are  entitled  to  the  prerogatives  of  true 
churches  of  Christ,  because  they  adopt  the  (Ecumenical  creeds,  and 
they  do  not  become  heretics,  unworthy  of  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship, 
because  their  particular  creeds  differ  in  some  points  from  ours. 
While,  therefore,  we  can  accept  the  positions  taken  by  Dr.  Krauth 
on  Fellowship  as  a  rule,  we  cannot  accept  his  exclusive  interpreta- 
tion of  it.  We,  on  the  contrary,  hold  that  it  is  right  and  proper 
to  grant  pulpit  and  altar  fellowship  to  the  ministers  and  members  of 
orthodox  Protestant  churches,  in  exceptional  cases,  as  a  matter,  not 
of  right,  but  of  privilege,  and  maintain  that  the  extension  of  such 
fellowship  is  sustained  by  Christ's  instructions,  by  apostolic  example, 
by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  by  the  general  judg- 
ment of  the  Christian  world. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.  {General  Synod.) 

I  would  not  say  anything  on  the  paper  read,  did  I  not  fear  that 
my  silence  might  be  misconstrued  into  an  endorsement  of  all  that 
it  contains.     Whilst  there  is  much  with  which  I  might  agree,  it  con- 


74  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

tains  assumptions  and  looks  to  conclusions  to  which  I  can  by  no 
means  yield  my  assent.  By  the  very  terms  employed — though  not 
in  the  subject  as  originally  published — "  the  denominations  around 
us,''  omitting  '^  other,''  it  is  assumed  that  the  Lutheran  Church 
has  claims  as  a  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  cannot  be  accorded 
to  these  denominations.  To  set  up  such  a  claim,  it  seems  to  me,  is 
to  ignore  God's  providential  dealings  with  His  Church,  and  also  to 
refuse  to  recognize  the  manifest  tokens  of  His  presence  and  favor. 
Might  not  God  choose  to  reform  the  Church  and  restore  the  pure 
Gospel  and  ordinances,  without  necessarily  employing  the  same 
human  instruments,  or  giving  to  the  work  precisely  the  same  form 
in  every  respect  ?  As  He  chose  Luther  and  his  co-laborers  in  Ger- 
many, may  He  not  have  chosen  other  instruments  in  England, 
Scotland  and  elsewhere  ?  and  what  right  have  we  to  sit  in  judgment 
on  His  and  their  work?  Have  we  a  right  to  say  that  other  denom- 
inations (I  use  the  word  "  other")  are  not  part  of  the  true  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  be  treated  by  us  as  such  ? 

It  is  not,  and  will  not  be,  denied  that  in  these  other  denomina- 
tions, there  are  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  humble,  devoted 
believers.  It  is  not,  and  will  not  be,  denied  that  these  denomina- 
tions have  furnished  a  full  share  of  distinguished  scholars  and  theo- 
logians, of  self-denying  pastors  and  missionaries,  and  of  zealous  and 
devoted  laborers  in  every  department  of  Christian  activity.  They 
sometimes  put  us  to  shame  by  their  enlightened  liberality  and  zeal 
in  the  cause  of  our  divine  Redeemer.  In  this  country  especially 
they  have  taken  the  lead  and  outstripped  us,  in  the  work  of  preach- 
ing the  Gospel  to  the  millions  at  home  and  abroad. 

Now  I  cannot  see  by  what  right,  or  on  what  ground  we  can  refuse 
the  fullest  recognition  to  these  denominations  that  are  so  manifestly 
owned  of  God,  and  whose  labors  are  crowned  with  so  much  favor. 
If  these  Churches  are  true  Evangelical  Churches,  and  their  members 
are  true  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  who  are  we  that  we  should 
undertake  to  legislate  and  prescribe  the  terms  on  which  we  will  re- 
cognize those  whom  the  Master  owns,  or  set  up  arbitrary  conditions 
of  relationship  among  the  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ? 


DISCUSSION.  ^  75 

There  is  something  utterly  incongruous  and  unscriptural  In  a  true 
disciple  of  Christ,  an  acknowledged  subject  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
with  the  genuine  ^^  marks  of  the  Lord  Jesus,''  being  denied  his 
rights  and  privileges  in  that  kingdom.  In  the  Apostolic  Church  a 
Christian  was  a  Christian,  and  a  subject  of  Christ's  kingdom  was 
recognized  wherever  he  went  among  his  fellow  Christians.  Even 
citizenship  in  the  Roman  empire  carried  with  it  all  the  rights  and 
immunities  of  citizenship,  wherever  the  Roman  empire  extended  its 

•domain  or  asserted  its  authority.  The  simple  utterance,  "  I  am  a 
Roman  citizen,"  was  enough  to  claim  protection  in  the  most  sacred 
rights.  Wherever  the  tread  of  the  Roman  legion  was  heard,  or  the 
banner  bearing  the  Roman  eagle  floated,  there  were  secured  the 
rights  of  Roman  citizens.  The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  more  widely 
extended,  and  offers  to  its  subjects  privileges  superior  to  those  of 
imperial  Rome.  This  kingdom  is  marked  by  no  geographical 
boundaries ;  it  is  confined  to  no  country  or  clime  or  race ;  in  it 
"  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there 
is  neither  male  nor  female  :  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  Can 
it  be  that  subjects  of  this  kingdom,  whose  dominion  is  from  sea  to  sea, 
and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  have  a  more  restricted 
exercise  of  their  rights  than  the  subjects  of  the  smallest  and  most 
petty  earthly  power  ?  Must  a  Lutheran  Christian  be  acknowledged 
only  among  Lutherans,  and  Reformed  only  among  Reformed,  and 
so  this  universal  kingdom  of  Christ  be  dwarfed  or  divided  until  only 

■  those  are  recognized  who  belong  to  our  own  particular  party  or  sec- 
tion ?  Shall  we  as  Lutherans  set  up  the  absurd  claim  of  being  the 
peculiar  chosen  people,  and  treat  the  [other]  denominations  around 
us  as  aliens? 

I  am  not  concerned  just  now  with  the  question  of  responsibility 
for  the  divisions  in  the  Christian  Church.  They  exist  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  They  have  existed  for  centuries.  The  great  Head  of  the 
Church  has  not  refused  to  acknowledge  these  different  Churches  or 
to  bestow  upon  them  His  benediction.     True,  He  has  prayed  that 


^6  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

all  might  be  one.  And  so  has  He  prayed  and  taught  us  to  pray, — 
'^Thy  kingdom  come."  Shall  we  refuse  full  recognition  to  other 
denominations  because  not  in  all  respects  one  with  us,  or  deny  His 
kingdom  because  it  does  not  yet  come  in  full  power  and  glory  ? 

It  seems  to  me  unfortunate  that  the  discussion  on  this  subject  has 
taken  so  one-sided  a  turn,  and  that  it  has  been  mainly  the  discussion 
of  ' 'pulpit  ami  allar fellowship.''  Indeed,  it  is  narrowed  down  very 
much  to  the  question  of  altar  fellowship,  or  allowing  others  to  com- 
mune with  Lutherans,  or  Lutherans  extending  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  those  of  other  denominations.  This  is  not  the 
time  nor  the  place  for  a  full  discussion  of  this  subject.  Individual 
congregations  or  denominations  may  adopt  such  regulations  not  in- 
consistent with  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  New  Testament,  as  they 
may  deem  best  calculated  to  secure  the  purity  and  promote  the  wel- 
fare of  the  Church.  But  they  should  be  very  careful  not  to  exercise 
aright,  with  which  their  Lord  has  never  invested  them.  The  Apostle 
Peter  has  set  us  a  good  example  in  this  respect,  and  announced  a 
principle  which  may  aid  in  settling  a  point  which  seems  to  sorely 
vex  some.  Averse  as  he  was  to  recognizing  any  except  Jews  as  pro- 
perly belonging  to  the  Church,  when  he  saw  what  the  Lord  was 
doing,  he  said :  ' '  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized,  ivhich  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?' '  If  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  bestowed  on  others  as  well  as  on  us,  if  they  give  proof 
of  the  presence  and  grace  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  as  we,  who  can  for- 
bid to  them  the  use  of  the  Sacraments?  There  is  no  authority  in 
God's  Word  for  this  wide  separation  between  what  God  has  joined 
together  in  this  Church — the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper — and  throwing  the  one  so  widely  open,  that  almost  any  bap- 
tism is  recognized,  Romish  or  Protestant,  clerical  or  lay,  and  then 
hedging  about  the  table  of  the  Lord  so  that  none  but  a  Lutheran 
may  approach  a  Lutheran  altar.  Against  this  spirit  of  exclusivism, 
we  ask,  in  the  language  of  Peter,  ''Can  any  man  forbid  water?'' — or 
can  any  man  forbid  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments  to  those 
who  "  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?" 


DISCUSSION,  "JJ 

Against  the  exclusivism  of  this  paper,  as  well  as  against  the  sec- 
tarianism of  this  age,  we  must  express  our  most  decided  objection. 

The  discussion  was  participated  in  also  by  Revs.  L.  E  Albert,  D  D., 
F.  Klinefelter  and  S.  R.  Boyer.  Their  remarks  have  not  been  fur- 
nished for  publication.     The  discussion  was  closed  as  follows: 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  C.  P.  KRAUTII,  D.  D.  LL.  D.     {General  Council.) 

In  the  theme  accepted  by  me,  as  stated  to  me — and  properly 
stated — the  Lutheran  Church  is  not  coordinated  as  one  de- 
nomination with  others.  Her  moral  right  to  live  turns  upon  the 
proof  that  she  is  a  Church  with  the  New  Testament  essentials — 
doctrine  pure  in  every  part,  and  right  sacraments.  Those  who  cut 
her  off  from  them,  or  cut  themselves  off  from  her  fellowship,  and 
erect  their  hostile  denominations,  either  reject  the  truths  she  holds, 
and  in  rejecting  truth  are  heretics  or  errorists,  or  if  they  concede 
that  our  Church  holds  the  divine  system,  are  schismatists  in  contin- 
uing in  voluntary  sundering  from  her. 

If  you  once  say  sectarianism  is  venal,  sects  are  good  because 
there  are  good  people  in  sects,  where  will  you  stop  ?  What  lovely 
people  there  are  in  the  Church  of  Rome ;  what  characters  of  ex- 
quisite beauty,  to  all  human  observation,  there  are  among  Socinians; 
what  pathos  of  sweetness  strikes  us  at  times,  even  amid  Pagan- 
ism !  The  great  world  has  men  and  women  who  put  to  shame  false , 
or  careless,  or  conventional.  Christians.  Is  slavery  to  be  compro- 
mised with  because  some  of  the  best  of  men  have  held  slaves? 
Could  we  as  patriots  officially  recognize,  because  of  their  private 
excellencies,  citizens  of  a  government  at  war  with  ours?  We  recog- 
nize as  cordially  as  any  man,  the  personal  virtues  and  achievements 
of  Christians  everywhere  ;  but  if  they  feel  bound  in  conscience  to 
confess  adversely  to  our  Confession,  to  keep  up  denominations  to 
build  up  that  Confession,  to  withhold  themselves  from  permanent 
communion  with  us;  and  to  guard  their  pulpits  against  the  constant 
preaching  of  the  whole  New  Testament  doctrine, — which  is  the 
doctrine  of  our  Church — then  do  they  bind  us,  on  their  own 
showing,  to  confine  our  pulpit  to  those  who  constantly  preach  what 
we  are  sure  is  the  whole  truth,  and  our  altars  to  those  who  are  the 
disciples,  imperfect  it  may  be,  but  willing,  of  that  truth.  W^e  have 
common  terms  for  all,  and  if  we  relin(|uish  a  system  of  tests  and 
safeguards  for  others,  we  must  relinquish  them  for  ourselves. 


78 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


This  style  of  reasoning  defies  the  universal  judgment  of  historical 
Christendom,  which  with  unbroken  unanimity  maintains  that  unity 
in  confessed  doctrine  is  an  essential  element  of  Church  unity.  For 
this  we  are  asked  to  substitute  a  unity  of  good  people,  or  people  we 
conjecture  to  be  good,  without  reference  to  their  faith.  It  is  the 
compendious  method  of  the  poet — 

"  He  can't  be  wrong,  whose  life  is  in  the  right." 

Throughout  the  argument  we  are  meeting,  there  runs  the  fallacy 
of  confounding  the  Church  as  invisible,  with  the  Church  as  visible. 
Who  form  the  Church  invisible  it  is  for  Him,  who  alone  sees  the 
invisible,  infallibly  to  judge.  In  the  Church  visible,  we  must  have 
not  wavering  and  individual  surmises,  but  carefully  considered  and 
uniform  principles  of  test  and  discipline,  resting  on  what  we  can  see 
and  know.  External  profession  of  the  pure  faith,  made  credible  by 
the  acts  of  men,  is  the  only  test  to  which  we  can  bring  the  claim  of 
internal  possession  of  it.  The  eloquent  description  of  the  Roman 
Empire  has  no  applicability  to  the  visible  Church  militant,  either  as 
it  is  in  fact,  or  in  the  divine  description  of  its  state  on  earth.  In 
the  mouth  of  a  Romanist,  it  would  have  consistency :  in  the  mouth 
of  a  Protestant  it  has  none.  The  Roman  Kingdom  was  a  kingdom 
which  imposed  the  cross;  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  is  a  kingdom  which 
bears  the  cross,  and  will  bear  it  till  her  King  comes  again.  Yet 
even  a  Romanist  would  hardly  fall  into  the  confusion  of  the  dead 
and  the  living,  the  nominal  and  the  real,  which  gives  plausibility  to 
the  illustration.  The  utterance,  "I  am  a  Roman  citizen,"  made 
indeed  a  claim  to  Roman  rights;  but  the  rights  were  not  conceded  till 
the  claim  was  tested  by  modes  of  uniform  principle.  Roman  privi- 
lege were  bound  up  with  subjection  to  Roman  law,  fealty  to  Roman 
rules,  and  fidelity  to  Roman  duty.  What  we  are  discussing  is  the 
privileges  of  Lutheran  pulpits  and  of  Lutheran  altars.  If  it  is  secta- 
rian to  have  these  we  should  abandon  them ;  but  if  it  is  sectarian  to 
have  others,  the  others  should  be  abandoned.  The  Saviour  and 
His  Apostles,  and  the  early  Church,  knew  of  but  one  communion. 
All  outside  of  that  was  sect  or  schism.  Christendom  should  be  one 
communion  with  one  faith,  and  one  confession — its  faith  the  faith  of 
the  Gospel — its  confession  the  unmixed  witness  of  that  faith.  This 
is  the  faith  we  believe  our  Church  has.  This  is  the  faith  she  em- 
bodies in  her  Confession.  This  position  allows  of  no  compromise. 
If  it  is  false  we  must  abandon  it,  and  let  our  Church  go.     If  it  is 


DISCUSSION.  79 

true  we  must  stand  by  it,  and  all  who  wish  fellowship  with  us,  must 
come  to  it.  This  is  no  egotism  of  Church  vanity  ;  it  is  consistency 
with  principle. 

It  is  no  fault  of  ours  that  others  have  thrown  forth  sectarian  ban- 
ners. We  did  not  go  out  from  them.  They  have  gone  away  from 
us,  or  have  followed  those  who  abandoned  us.  Dr.  Brown  claims 
for  them  the  right  to  forsake  us,  to  repudiate  our  distinctive  faith, 
and  yet  to  have  untested  all  the  privileges  of  our  own  faithful  chil- 
dren. He  proposes  to  accept  their  claim  as  their  proof — yet  if  their 
claim  to  be  right  is  valid,  ours  cannot  be.  Contradictions  cannot 
both  be  right. 

It  is  surprising,  too,  that  he  fails  to  see  that  in  all  the  points  here 
involved  there  is  no  parallel  whatever  between  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  to  say  nothing  of  the  pulpit.  The  adult  seeker  of 
baptism  from  us  is  not  a  member  of  another  communion.  The  child 
who  seeks  it  through  the  parents  is  not  of  another  church-household. 
Does  any  one  pretend  that  the  tests  of  fitness  for  baptism  are 
throughout  identical  with  those  of  fitness  for  the  Supper  ;  or  will  any 
one  say  that  consistency  requires  that  we  grant  that  every  one  whose 
baptism  we  acknowledge  as  valid,  is  thereby  shown  to  be  entitled  to 
come  to  our  communion  ? 

When  a  protest  is  made  at  the  close  against  sectarianism,  the 
whole  line  of  previous  thought  seems  to  imply  that  what  is  meant  is 
not  the  sectarianism  which  makes  sects,  magnifies  their  virtues,  veils 
their  mischiefs,  ignores  their  crimes,  and  treats  the  divisions  they 
create  as  if  they  were  not  destructive  of  unity.  It  rather  seems  as  if 
the  sectarianism  which  the  speaker  had  in  view  is  the  fidelity  to  prin- 
ciple which  resists  sects,  and  the  sect-spirit,  most  of  all  when  they 
come  in  the  pretences  of  a  spurious  unionism,  and  shuts  upon  them 
the  pulpit  and  altar.  In  such  a  construction  of  sectarianism  the  re- 
lations of  our  Lutheran  communion  to  the  denominations  around  us 
would  be,  not  the  relations  of  a  Church  to  sects,  but  of  a  sect  to 
Churches. 

The  following  paper  was  then  read  : 


'  THE  FOUR  GENERAL  BODIES  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

CHURCH  IN  THE  UNFFED  STATES:  WHFiRE- 

IN  THEY  AGREE,  AND  WHEREIN  THEY 

MIGHT  HARMONIOUSLY  CO- 

OFERATE." 

REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D., 

Professor  of  Doctrinal  Theology  in   the    Theological  Seiuinaiy  of  the  General 
Synod,  Gcttysbttrg,  Fa. 

The  '^fai/r  Bodies'"  referred  to  are  "  The  General  Synod  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States  f  "  The  General 
Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  North  America  f 
"  The  General  Council  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in 
North  America  f  and  "  The  Sy nodical  Conference  of  North 
America.'''' 

THESE  are  separate  and  distinct  bodies  of  Lutherans  at  present, 
some  of  them  once  united  and  still  holding  much  in  common, 
yet  differing  so  far  as  to  maintain  each  its  own  organization  and  in- 
dividual existence.  Their  separations  are  in  part  the  result  of  local 
and  temporary  circumstances,  and  in  part  of  deeper  lying  causes. 
Each  one  has  a  history  of  its  own,  and  each  is  now  aiming  to  work 
out  its  own  mission.  Between  some  of  them  there  maybe  a  greater 
affinity  than  between  others,  yet  among  them  all  are  family  like- 
nesses and  strong  points  of  sympathy  and  resemblance.  Some  of 
them  may  possibly  be  so  little  acquainted  with  each  other,  and  others 
so  unhappily  alienated,  as  not  to  care  to  trace  the  resemblance  or  to 
acknowledge  the  relationship,  but  the  truth  will  reveal  itself,  and 
even  their  speech  bewrayeth  them.  All  these  Lutherans  talk 
Lutheran,  and  sometimes  indulge  in  what  seems  to  outsiders  a  little 
like  boasting  over  the  great  Lutheran  Church,  to  which  they  claim  to 
belong,  and  of  which  they  are  quite  willing  to  be  considered  a  part. 
The  subject  for  our  discussion  is  one  concerning  which  there  will 
very  naturally  be  great  diversity  of  sentiment ;  and  no  treatment  of 
it  or  conclusions  reached,  will  likely  prove  satisfactory  to  all  or 

(80) 


DR.  brown's  essay.  8 1 

probably  to  even  a  majority  of  those  present.  The  very  fact  of  the 
existence  of  four  such  bodies,  impHes  differences  of  some  kind, 
and  the  question,  ''Wherein  they  agree,''  imphes  points  in  which 
they  disagree;  and  so  the  other  question:  "-Wherein  they  might 
harmoniously  co-operate,''  impHes  difficulties  in  the  way,  or  some 
things  in  which  they  are  not  able  thus  to  co-operate.  That  such  has 
been  and  still  continues  the  case,  all  very  well  know.  We  do  not  at 
present  harmoniously  co-operate. 

But  we  are  not  now  to  search  after  the  points  of  difference,  or  to 
see  how  much  ground  we  can  find  for  our  separations.  Our  differ- 
ences have,  no  doubt,  been  magnified  enough,  so  as  to  make  our 
separation  wider  than  need  be — even  wider  than  between  us  and 
those  who  do  not  bear  the  same  family  name.  We  are  now  to  look 
after  some  of  the  points  of  agreement,  and,  I  suppose,  to  see  whether, 
after  all  our  bickerings  and  separations,  we  do  not  all  belong  to  the 
same  "  household  of  faith,"  and  whether  we  might  not  live  together 
in  unity  and  peace,  and  "  stand  fast  in  one  spirit,  with  one  mind, 
striving  together  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel." 

Agreement  between  individuals  and  Churches  in  religious  matters 
is  relative  and  not  absolute ;  and  it  may  be  well  to  bear  this  in  mind 
during  this  discussion.  As  God  has  made  no  two  faces  absolutely 
the  same,  nor  any  two  souls  absolutely  alike,  though  all  in  His  image 
and  likeness,  so  no  two  Churches  are  absolutely  alike,  and  no  two 
members  of  any  one  of  these  four  bodies  are  in  perfect  accord 
in  thought,  sentiment,  feeling,  purpose  and  action.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary nor  desirable  that  it  should  be  so.  There  may  be  absolute  uni- 
formity or  sameness  in  dead  particles  of  matter,  but  genuine  life  is 
infinitely  diversified.  All  that  can  be  expected  or  desired  is  sub- 
stantial agreement,  or  such  an  agreement  as  will  secure  harniviny  of 
views,  feeling  and  co-operation — according  to  the  divine  Word, 
''Keeping  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace."  When  tlie 
apostle  exhorts  the  Corinthians  to  "be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the 
same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment,"  he  does  not  mean,  as  the  words 
in  the  original  do  not,  that  they  must  all  believe,  and  think  and  feel 
precisely  alike — which  would  be  practically  impossible  —  but  that  there 
should  be  no  such  differences  as  would  cause  divisions  and  strife 
among  them.  It  was  a  party  spirit  that  he  warned  them  against.  If 
any  are  disposed  to  look  for  absolute  agreement  between  all  or  any 
two  of  these  bodies,  as  a  condition  of  co-operation,  they  will  look 


82  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

for  what  they  will  not  find  within  any  one  of  them,  and  for  what  they 
will  search  in  vain  anywhere  in  the  Church  on  earth.  Each  of  these 
four  bodies,  if  candid,  will  admit  that  it  is  not  free  from  very  con- 
siderable diversity  of  views  on  various  points,  even  of  doctrine,  and 
that  some  of  the  meetings  of  these  bodies  are  not  the  most  harmo- 
nious, nor  the  co-operation  the  most  cordial.  We  are  simply  stating 
what  every  one  knows,  and  it  is  one  of  the  commonplaces  of  Church 
history,  that  ecclesiastical  bodies  are  not  always  distinguished  for  har- 
mony of  views  and  action.  They  are  chasing  a  phantom,  who  expect 
to  find  this  ideal  of  unity  and  agreement  here  on  earth,  which  belongs 
only  to  a  state  of  perfection  in  heaven. 

Using  the  term  "agree"  in  its  popular  and  also  in  its  Scriptural 
sense,  we  may  find  many  points  '■^wherein  these  four  bodies  agree,^' 
some  of  them  of  more  significance  than  others,  but  none  of  them 
entirely  destitute  of  meaning  and  force.  To  a  disinterested  observer 
we  have  no  doubt  that  these  points  are  such  as  to  make  our  disagree- 
ments appear  strange,  if  not  worse  than  strange. 

I.       POINTS  WHEREIN  THEY  AGREE. 

In  calling  your  attention  to  some  of  the  points,  "wherein  they 
agree,"  we  begin  with: 

I.  A  common  fia?ne — Lutheran.  There  is  something  in  a  name, 
little  as  we  are  disposed  to  make  of  it.  A  name  is  used  to  express 
some  quality  or  property  of  an  object.  We  recognize  and  distin- 
guish other  Churches  to  some  extent  by  their  names.  Presbyterian, 
Episcopal,  Methodist,  Baptist,  express  severally  distinct  denomina- 
tions, and  types  of  our  Protestant  Christianity.  The  name  Lutheran 
serves  the  same  general  purpose.  At  first,  the  name  was  not  a  mat- 
ter of  preference  or  voluntary  choice,  but  applied  as  a  term  of  re- 
proach; yet,  like  the  name  Christian,  having  been  applied  by  ene- 
mies it  was  accepted,  and  no  part  of  the  Lutheran  Church  would  now 
hastily  abandon  its  use.  We  are  not,  as  some  imagine,  followers  of 
Martin  Luther,  but  we  are  not  unwilling  to  bear  the  name  of  that 
chosen  instrument  of  God  to  restore  to  His  Church  doctrines  which 
we  hold  dearer  than  all  human  names.  We  are  Evangelical  Luther- 
ans, because  we  accept  the  Gospel  which  Luther  rescued  from  Rom- 
ish perversions  and  abuses.  There  have  been  and  still  are  other 
discriminating  and  qualifying  appellations  along  with  Lutheran,  some 
of  them  at  times  used  to  express  invidious  distinctions.  Thus  we 
have  had  German  Lutheran,  Swedish  Lutheran,  English  Lutheran, 


DR.    brown's    essay.  83 

American  Lutheran,  Missouri  Lutheran,  and  divers  other  kinds,  Ijut 
all  bearing  the  generic  name,  Lutheran. 

As  no  one  of  these  four  bodies  is  inclined  to  abandon  the  name, 
so  no  one  intends  to  allow  any  other  a  monopoly  of  its  use  or 
honors.  Some,  indeed,  may  regard  themselves  as  more  Lutheran 
than  others,  and  better  entitled  to  wear  the  ancestral  name,  but  this 
is  a  matter  open  to  discussion.  Some  may  be  less  Lutheran  than 
Luther  was,  and  others  may  be  more  Lutheran  than  the  reformer 
himself.  The  divergencies  in  this  respect  may  indeed  be  con- 
siderable, and  may  vary  with  the  same  body  at  different  times. 
There  may  be  as  much  difference  in  the  same  body  at  different 
periods  in  its  existence,  as  between  two  of  these  bodies  at  the  same 
time,  but  still  they  do  not  surrender  the  title.  In  a  family  one 
son  may  be  more  like  the  father  than  another,  but  this  does  not 
deprive  either  of  the  right  to  wear  the  family  name.  And  it  not 
unfrequently  happens  that  the  likeness  reappears  most  striking  in 
a  succeeding  generation,  where  it  had  been  least  apparent  in  a 
former  one.  So  it  has  happened  again  and  again  with  Churches, 
which  have  still  held  on  to  the  old  family  name.  These  bodies  all 
mean  to  be  known  and  recognized  as  Lutheran. 

The  absurdity  of  any  one  of  these  bodies  attempting  to  set  up  an 
exclusive  right  to  the  use  of  the  name  Lutheran  is  manifest  from  the 
fact,  that  no  two  of  them  would  agree  as  to  who  should  have  the 
right  to  wear  it.  It  must  be  admitted  that  if  not  Lutherans,  then 
we  are  nothing  at  all :  for  none  of  us  are  Baptists,  or  Methodists, 
or  Presbyterians,  or  Episcopalians,  much  less  Romanists,  or  Ration- 
alists— and  surely  we  are  somebody.  If  not  Lutherans,  it  is  time 
we  should  know  what  we  are,  and  that  the  world  should  know. 
We  are  called  Lutherans.  We  are  Lutherans — all  Lutherans,  bear- 
ing the  name,  and  entitled  to  bear  it.  If  any  are  disposed  to  dis- 
pute this  point,  or  challenge  the  right  of  any  one  of  these  bodies  to 
the  Lutheran  name,  it  may  be  added,  that  so  far  as  the  highest  civil 
authorities  can  determine  the  point,  they  have  decided  that  we  shall 
be  acknowledged  and  held  in  law  as  Lutherans,  and  entitled  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  Lutherans. 

2.  A  common  origin  or  descent.  There  is  something  in  blood  as 
well  as  in  a  name.  Religion  and  Churches  have  been  largely  af- 
fected in  their  character  by  nationality  or  race.  It  is  true  that  God 
"  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 


84  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

of  the  earth;"  but  it  is  also  true  that  He  has  made  use  of  them  in 
different  ways  and  for  different  purposes  in  accomplishing  His  own 
most  holy  will.  This  principle  showed  itself  in  the  times  of  the 
Apostles,  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  portions  of  the  Church  ; 
and  soon  afterwards  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches. 
Each  had  its  special  origin  and  mission. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  some  nationalities  took  more 
kindly  to  one  form  of  Protestantism,  and  some  to  another.  Luther 
himself  was  a  German,  not  only  by  birth,  but  in  soul  and  spirit,  in 
heart  and  life,  and  his  magnetic  influence  is  felt  among  Germans 
and  their  descendants  to  the  present  day.  And  this  extended  itself 
to  those  peoples  or  nationalities  most  intimately  connected  by  blood 
and  language  with  the  Germans.  On  the  other  hand,  Scotland, 
Ireland,  and  England  did  not  take  so  kindly  to  Lutheranism  as  did 
the  Germans  and  some  other  nationalities.  They  accepted  what  is 
generally  known  as  the  Reformed  faith,  and  they  continue  in  that 
faith.  These  different  phases  of  Protestantism  have  perpetuated 
themselves  through  these  several  nationalities  from  the  Reformation 
to  our  own  times.  The  prophet  asks  :  "  Hath  a  nation  changed 
their  gods  ?"  It  is  no  small  or  easy  thing  for  a  people  to  change 
its  religion,  even  where  the  change  is  only  from  one  type  of  Pro- 
testantism to  another.  History  records  but  i^w  examples  of  a 
people  or  nation  changing  one  form  or  type  of  a  religion  for 
another,  even  when  these  were  closely  allied,  unless  under  some 
powerful  movement,  or  by  special  divine  interposition. 

Some  may  indeed  hold  that  Lutheranism  is  Christianity,  pure  and 
unmixed,  that  any  departure  from  it  is  a  departure  from  true  relig- 
ion, and  that  it  is  adapted  to  all  nations,  ages  and  climes.  They  may 
hold  that  all  other  forms  of  Protestantism  are  less  pure,  and  that  we 
should  refuse  to  recognize  other  denominations  as  entitled  to  a  like 
claim  with  ourselves  to  be  parts  of  the  true  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 
It  may  be  argued  that  as  genuine  Christianity,  Lutheranism  is 
bound  to  triumph  everywhere.  But  still  the  stubborn  fact  remains, 
that  our  progress  has  been  chiefly  among  the  descenrlants  of  those 
who  originally  accepted  the  Lutheran  form  of  the  Reformation,  and 
that  we  are  making  slow  progress  among  those  who  from  the  begin- 
ning have  accepted  and  practiced  a  somewhat  different  form  of 
Protestantism.  If  it  indeed  be  true  that  Lutheranism  is  Christianity 
and  Christianity   Lutheranism,  then   there  is  a  poor  showing  for 


DR.    BROWN  S    ESSAY.  55 

Christianity  throughout  a  considerable  part  of  the  Protestant  world, 
including  the  larger  part  of  our  own  professed  Christian  population, 
with  nearly  all  our  large  cities  and  centres  of  Christian  activity. 
It  must  be  confessed  that  our  chief  progress  thus  far  has  been  among 
those  who  claim  a  Lutheran  ancestry  ;  and,  whilst  neither  our  labors 
nor  our  success  should  be  limited  to  these,  they  have  on  us  peculiar 
claims,  and  we  have  in  them  a  fruitful  field  of  labor.  It  might 
almost  be  said  to  require  some  mixture  of  German  blood  to  make 
full-blooded  Lutherans. 

These  four  bodies  can  claim  a  common  origin  or  ancestry.  Some 
of  them  may  be  a  little  further  removed  from  their  original  tongue 
and  characteristics  than  others,  but  all  have  something  to  say  of  the 
vaterland  and  the  viulter-sprache.  It  is  in  the  memory  of  those 
now  living,  when  those  portions  of  the  Church  at  present  most 
English  in  speech  and  customs,  knew  scarcely  anything  but  Ger- 
man ;  and  in  all  of  these  bodies  the  great  mass  of  the  membership 
is  either  from  the  home  of  Lutheranism  in  the  old  world,  or  from 
their  descendants  in  the  new.  In  their  veins  there  flows  the  same 
blood,  and  they  have  not  only  a  common  name,  but  are  brethren 
according  to  the  flesh.  Alas,  that  difference  of  language  or  shades 
of  belief,  or  diversities  of  any  kind  should  have  to  any  degree 
alienated  those  who  are  kindred  of  one  family. 

3.  The  acceptance  pf  the  Augsburg  Confession.  This  Confession 
is  the  oldest  of  modern  Confessions.  It  is  older  than  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  or  the  Tridentine  Catechism — the  Confes- 
sion of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  older  than  the  Orthodox  Con- 
fession of  the  Greek  Church,  It  justly  claims  a  greater  antiquity 
than  any  other  Confession  of  any  of  the  separate  parts  of  Christen- 
dom. It  moreover  furnishes  the  basis  of  most  of  the  other  Confes- 
sions set  forth  by  other  Protestant  denominations.  It  is  indeed  a 
grand  old  Confession,  and  any  attempt  to  eulogize  it  would  be  as 
presumptuous  as  it  would  be  unnecessary. 

The  reception  and  profession  of  this  Confession  has  for  more 
than  three  hundred  years  been  the  acknowledged  passport  of  gen- 
uine Lutheranism.  Wherever  the  Lutheran  Church  has  confessed 
her  faith,  in  any  quarter  of  the  globe,  she  has  done  it  by  means  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  To  this  Confession,  because  of  its  evan- 
gelical character,  no  less  than  because  of  its  historical  renown,  the 
Church  clings  as  one  of  her  chiefest  glories. 


86  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

In  its  reception  and  profession  all  these  bodies  are  agreed.  There 
may  be  and  there  is  some  difference  in  the  terms  in  which  this  Con- 
fession is  subscribed.  Different  forms  of  subscription  have  existed 
from  the  very  beginning  of  Lutheranism.  They  have  been  common 
in  the  old  world  as  well  as  in  the  new.  No  particular  form  of 
subscription  has  been  established  as  essential  to  genuine  Lutheran- 
ism. Whilst  some  have  hesitated  to  adopt  a  form  of  subscription 
that  binds  to  every  jot  and  tittle  of  the  Confession,  others  have  not 
hesitated  to  go  beyond  the  Confession,  and  bind  to  what  is  not  re- 
quired by  its  letter  or  spirit.  It  is  easy  to  make  charges  of  un- 
Lutheran  and  hyper-Lutheran  ways,  but  in  such  a  controversy  it  is 
not  so  easy  to  convince  each  other  of  error. 

If  the  question  were  asked  of  any  one  of  these  bodies  :  IVhaf  is 
your  Confession  of  Faith  ?  the  answer  would  be — the  Augsburg 
Confession.  If  the  additional  question  were  asked — Nothing  more, 
nothing  less  than  this  ?  there  would  doubtless  be  explanations  to 
be  offered,  and  some  differences  of  sentiment  discovered,  just  as 
there  would  be  in  regard  to  the  Apostles'  Creed.  But  the  fact  still 
remains,  that  all  agree  in  receiving  and  professing  this  venerable 
Confession.  Moreover  each  body  would  doubtless  be  ready  to  de- 
fend its  mode  of  receiving  the  Confession  as  the  most  consistent 
and  most  truly  Lutheran.  All  that  we  deem  important  just  now, 
and  this  we  do  deem  important  in  this  discussion  is,  that  all  agree 
in  the  one  point  of  making  the  Augsburg  Confession  their  Confes- 
sion of  Faith. 

Time  will  not  allow  us  to  consider  particular  doctrines,  but  one 
or  two  have  always  been  held  by  the  Lutheran  Church  as  so  funda- 
mental to  evangelical  religion,  and  so  broadly  distinguishing  the 
Lutheran  from  the  Roman  Catholic  and  from  all  Romanizing  ten- 
dencies, that  they  may  be  briefly  noticed. 

(i)  The  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith.  It  may  be  imagined 
that  this  doctrine  is  so  common  to  all  Protestant  Churches,  that  it  is 
folly  to  mention  it  as  characterizing  these  bodies  of  Lutherans. 
But  we  claim  that  no  other  denomination  has  made  it  so  prominent 
in  its  doctrinal  system,  and  none  have  adhered  to  it  with  such  un- 
compromising strictness.  Other  denominations  have  magnified 
some  denominational  peculiarity,  so  that  they  are  chiefly  known  by 
such  marks,  but  the  Lutheran  Church  has  kept  central  and  most 
vital  in  her  system  this  great  doctrine  of  the  Reformation. 


DR.    brown's    essay.  87 

And  this  is  true,  we  believe,  to-day  of  all  these  bodies  of  Lutherans. 
It  provokes  a  smile  to  hear  the  question  from  some  other  denomina- 
tions— as  it  has  been  heard — ''Do  these  Lutherans  realiy  believe  in 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith?'"  It  might  as  well  be  asked, 
had  Martin  Luther  really  the  courage  to  fight  the  pope  and  the 
devil  ?    Only  ignorance  could  prompt  either  of  these  questions. 

Amid  all  the  diversities  in  forms  and  ceremonies  of  Church  polity 
and  ecclesiastical  regulations,  there  is  agreement  among  us  in  hold- 
ing fast  to  the  doctrine  on  which  the  Reformation  hinged,  the  doc- 
trine transcending  all  others  in  importance  to  the  salvation  of  souls 
and  the  purity  of  the  Church — the  doctrine  for  which  the  Reformers 
hazarded  everything — salvation  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  alone. 
It  would  betray  an  ignorance  or  prejudice  provoking  in  others,  but 
inexcusable  in  Lutherans,  to  question  that  any  one  of  these  bodies 
does  maintain  this  common  article  of  the  Lutheran  faith. 

(2)  The  priesthood  of  believers,  and  yet  the  divinely  instituted 
office  of  the  ministry.  No  righteousness  before  God  but  that  of 
Christ,  and  no  other  priesthood  than  His,  are  twin  doctrines.  On 
the  latter  of  these  the  Reformers  insisted  no  less  than  on  the  former. 
The  denial  of  these  constituted  the  grand  error  of  the  papacy.  So 
long  as  the  doctrine  of  human  merit  and  a  human  priesthood  stands, 
there  is  a  foundation  for  all  the  corruptions  and  abominations  of  the 
Romish  Church.     Remove  these  and  the  system  must  fall. 

But  this  leaves  full  room  for  the  office  of  the  Christian  ministry — 
an  office  divinely  instituted — to  preach  the  Word  and  administer  the 
Sacraments.  This  office  is  not  the  mere  creature  of  the  general  body 
of  believers,  created  or  changed  or  abolished  at  its  pleasure,  but  ex- 
ists by  divine  appointment,  and  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  divine 
economy  for  the  establishment,  perpetuity  and  extension  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  on  earth. 

In  this  general  doctrine  all  Lutherans  agree.  There  has  been  no 
little  controversy  in  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  the  ministry,  and 
not  a  little  diversity  in  practices  that  to  the  superficial  observer 
might  seem  to  indicate  the  widest  difference  of  views.  In  some 
places  and  in  some  congregations  there  has  been  an  amount  of  form 
and  ceremony,  a  degree  of  ritualistic  observances,  that  would  satisfy 
the  highest  of  high  Churchmen,  even  of  the  Anglican  or  Romish 
order;  whilst  in  others  there  has  been  a  Puritanic  plainness  even  to 
baldness,  that  might  gratify  the  lovers  of  "meeting-houses."     But 


88  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

amid  this  diversity  of  outward  forms  and  ceremonies,  from  the  lowest 
to  the  highest  style  of  Church  order,  there  has  been  a  substantial  agree- 
ment in  rejecting  every  Romish  idea  of  the  ministry  as  a  priesthood, 
and  holding  fast  to  the  New  Testament  idea  of  the  Christian  ministry. 
No  Church  has  been  more  free  from  Romanizing  tendencies,  or  fur- 
nished fewer  recruits  to  the  Church  of  Rome  than  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church.  In  this  it  may  be  safely  said  that  all  these  bodies 
agree.     They  are  all  Lutheran,  and  they  are  all  Evangelical  Lutheran. 

4.  The  religious  training  of  the  young  by  means  of  catechetical  in- 
struction, and  the  ratification  of  their  covenant  relation  with  the 
Church  by  confrntation.  Luther's  Catechism  and  Luther's  practice 
of  catechetical  instruction  are  still  prominent  features  of  Lutheran- 
ism.  Therj  have  been  times  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  in  the  old 
world  as  well  as  in  the  new,  when  this  system  of  religious  training 
was  well  nigh  abandoned.  New  methods  have  been  tried,  and  not 
by  one  part  of  the  Church  alone.  There  have  been  times  when  the 
ancient  practice  of  confirmation  was  a  "  new  measure"  in  the 
Lutheran  Church,  and  that  in  the  early  home  of  Lutheranism. 
Neither  Rationalism  nor  Radicalism  is  answerable  for  all  the  strange 
fire  that  has  been  kindred  on  Lutheran  altars. 

But  there  is  a  growing  conviction  in  favor  of  the  good  old  ways, 
not  to  the  exclusion,  however,  of  the  wisdom  to  be  gathered  from 
observation  and  experience  under  the  teaching  of  the  divine 
Word  and  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  old  is  not  to  be 
cherished  simply  because  it  is  old,  nor  the  new  to  be  rejected  simply 
because  it  is  new. 

In  all  of  these  bodies,  so  far  as  we  know,  there  is  agreement  in 
the  importance  and  value  of  catechetical  instruction,  and  of  a  care- 
ful indoctrination  of  the  young  and  the  old  in  the  great  truths  of 
our  most  holy  faith.  Some  may  be  more  zealous  and  faithful  in  this 
duty  than  others,  but  all  agree  in  the  general  practice. 

On  this  part  of  our  subject,  we  only  add : 

5.  The  Lutheran  love  of  liberty  and  agreement  in  diversity.  If 
there  were  nothing  else  "wherein  they  agree,"  they  surely  agree  in 
this — that  the  largest  liberty  is  claimed  and  practiced,  and  that  great 
diversity  prevails  among  the  Churches  in  all  of  these  bodies.  As  a 
rule  no  two  churches,  even  in  the  same  place,  have  precisely  the 
same  service.  They  all  have  manuals  of  worship,  and  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent the  churches  conform  to  the  recommendations  of  their  respect- 


DR.    brown's    essay.  89 

ive  bodies;  but  they  also  liave  an  invincible  love  of  liberty,  so  char- 
acteristic of  Lutherans  and  Germans,  and  refuse  to  be  fettered  by 
ecclesiastical  regulations. 

For  this  good  Lutheran  authority  might  be  cited.  At  the  very 
outset  the  Reformers  declared  that  in  order  "  to  the  true  unity  of  the 
Church,  it  is  not  reccssary  that  human  traditions,  rites  or  ceremonies 
instituted  by  men,  should  be  everywhere  alike,"  and  even  the  Form 
of  Concord,  prepared  in  the  interests  of  the  strictest  Lutheranism, 
teaches  that  "no  Church  should  condemn  another  because  one 
observes  more  or  less  than  the  other  of  those  outward  ceremonies 
which  God  has  not  commanded." 

If  in  anything  Lutherans  have  always  and  everywhere  manifested 
their  adherence  to  the  teaching  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  it  has  been 
in  this  particular.  On  opposite  sides  of  the  same  street,  and  in  the 
same  city  or  town,  they  are  found  using  different  forms  of  service, 
and  worshiping  in  the  beauty  of  almost  infinite  diversity.  This  is 
true,  we  are  informed,  in  Europe,  as  we  all  know  it  to  be  in  this 
country.     It  may  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  Lutheranism. 

In  this  these  four  bodies  agree.  They  differ  among  themselves 
as  well  as  from  each  other,  but  they  agree  in  this  endless  diversity. 
In  the  matter  of  wearing  the  gown,  the  use  of  a  liturgy,  the  extent 
of  liturgical  services,  the  variations  in  the  services  on  different  oc- 
casions, the  administration  of  ordinances — the  use  of  the  wafer  or 
bread,  etc.,  etc.,  almost  every  congregation  is  a  law  unto  itself. 
And  no  one  can  well  condemn  another,  seeing  they  all  claim  the 
same  law  of  liberty.  It  may  be  well  for  us  all  to  remember  the 
•-words  of  the  apostle :  '■'Happy  is  he  ihat  condenuictli  not  himself  in 
that  thing  which  he  allow eth." 

We  have  now  briefly  noticed  a  few  of  the  points  wherein  these- 
four  bodies  agree.  Others  might  be  mentioned,  and  these  dwelt 
upon  at  greater  length,  but  a  due  regard  to  the  time  allowed  and  to 
the  patience  of  our  hearers,  forbids  a  more  extended  discussion. 
Besides,  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  indicate,  without  enlargement,  such 
points  of  agreement  as  may  serve  to  furnish  a  comprehensive  and 
intelligent  judgment  on  the  subject. 

If  I  have  passed  by  the  points  of  difference,  or  made  no  account 
of  them,  it  will  be  understood  that  it  is  just  because  this  is  no  part 
of  the  task  assigned  me,  and  I  leave  to  others  this  duty.  There- 
may  possibly  be  opportunities  enough  during  the  meetings  of  this 
7 


90  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Diet  to  show  wherein  we  differ,  and  to  make  manifest  some  points  of 
disagreement.  It  would  be  altogether  gratuitous  for  me  to  antici- 
pate what  others  will  have,  if  they  choose,  a  better  right  to  say  and 
show. 

II.     "WHEREIN    THEY    MIGHT    HARMONIOUSLY   CO-OPERATE." 

It  is  not  likely  that  those  who  arranged  the  programme  for  this  Diet, 
and  in  their  selections  assigned  me  this  subject  for  discussion,  had 
any  special  reference  to  our  comfort,  but  it  is  a  matter  of  some  relief 
as  well  as  satisfaction,  that  it  has  been  put  in  the  very  form  it  is. 
Had  the  wording  been,  "  Wherein  can  they  harmoniously  co-oper- 
ate," judging  from  past  experience  and  present  aspects,  the  answer 
would  be,  in  nothing  save  possibly  in  holding  such  a  free  Diet,  in 
which  no  one  is  responsible  for  anybody  but  himself,  and  that 
responsibility  understood  to  be  of  a  somewhat  general  character. 
Even  the  holding  of  a  Diet  has  been  ridiculed  by  some  as  visionary, 
and  opposed  by  others  as  likely  to  result  in  all  manner  of  evils  to 
the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  serious  detriment  of  those  who  par- 
ticipate in  it.  Perhaps  few  have  been  without  grave  suspicions  as 
to  the  result. 

We  must  be  frank  enough  to  say  that  with  these  different  organi 
zations  existing  as  they  are,  with  all  the  machinery  necessary  to  their 
separate  and  distinct  work,  we  do  not  see  how  they  can  harmoniously 
co-operate,  if  this  means  uniting  energies  and  efforts  in  joint  labors. 
If  it  means,  as  we  suppose  it  does,  something  more  than  amicable 
relations,  and  non-interference  with  each  other's  interests,  then  co- 
operation seems  to  us  difficult  if  not  impossible,  without  the  sur- 
render of  principles  which  some  or  all  of  these  bodies  profess  to 
hold  of  vital  importance,  and  to  which  in  some  degree  they  owe 
their  separate  existence.  But  we  are  not  asked  to  consider  "Wherein 
they  ^(3!«  harmoniously  co-operate,"  but  "wherein  they  might."  What 
we  can  do  in  certain  circumstances,  and  what  we  might  do  with 
these  circumstances  largely  at  our  control,  are  very  different  ques- 
tions. 

Nor  are  we  required  or  expected  to  turn  prophet,  and  forecast 
the  future,  telling  how  in  the  good  time  to  come  all  divisions  will 
be  healed,  all  differences  forgotten,  and  we  present  the  picture  of  a 
perfectly  united  and  harmonious  Church.  This  maybe  left  to  those 
whose  "bright  visions"  extend   to  the  dim  future,  and  who  can  see 


DR.    BROWNS    ESSAY.  9I 

farther  and  clearer  than  common  mortals.  Such  a  time  we  may  not 
only  hope  will  come,  but  we  might  all  fervently  pray,  Even  so,  let 
it  come  quickly. 

But  we  are  now  to  consider  "wherein  these  four  bodies  might 
harmoniously  co-operate.^'  This  leads  us  to  look  at  the  reasonable 
probabilities  of  the  case.  Not  what  they  can  do,  just  now  and  as 
they  are ;  nor  what  they  some  day  may  or  will  do,  but  what  they 
might  do.  This  implies  a  change  or  modification  of  their  policy 
and  action  in  some  respects,  and  implies  that  this  is  a  thing  of  pos- 
sible accomplishment.  It  does  not,  however,  imply  the  abandon- 
ment of  these  several  distinct  organizations.  Indeed,  the  very  con- 
trary is  implied  in  the  question,  for  it  is  how  these  bodies  as  separate 
bodies  might  thus  co-operate.  But  it  does  imply  the  abandon- 
ment, to  some  extent  at  least,  of  separate  and  rival  interests,  and  that 
these  interests  should  be  pursued  in  common  and  harmoniously  by 
all  these  bodies.  It  does  imply,  we  think,  a  mutual  recognition  of 
each  other  as  Lutheran  bodies,  and  a  willingness  to  labor  together 
in  the  service  of  a  common  Lord  and  Master.  It  would  seem  like 
sheer  folly  to  talk  of  harmonious  co-operation,  and  yet  hesitate  to 
recognize  each  other's  character  and  labors  as  true  and  genuine 
Lutherans. 

And  such  a  recognition  might  take  place.  The  stern  logic  of 
events  will  probably  sooner  or  later  compel  it.  Churches  as  well  as 
individuals  are  sometimes  constrained  to  yield  to  enlightened  public 
sentiment  and  the  ongoings  of  Divine  Providence.  The  deepest 
prejudices  and  the  bitterest  animosities  have  melted  away  under  the 
softening  influences  of  time,  and  the  subduing  power  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  Paul  and  Barnabas  once  separated,  and  after  a  "sharp  con- 
tention," but  we  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  they  became 
reconciled,  and  harmoniously  co-operated  in  the  cause  of  their 
Redeemer.  Such  things  have  often  occurred  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  may  occur  again.  \Vhat  thus  often  occurs  in  the 
Church  might  take  place  even  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  among 
these  four  bodies.  They  might  be  led  to  see  that  it  was  their  duty 
and  interest  to  cease  contending  with  one  another,  and  in  one  spirit, 
with  one  mind,  strive  together  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel ! 

Viewing  this  subject,  then,  in  this  light,  as  to  what  they  w/^///"  do  in 
the  direction  indicated,  instead  of  saying,  "in  nothing,"  we  would 
rather  incline  to  say  they  might  co-operate  in  everything.     We  see 


g2  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

nothing  "wherein"  they  might  not  co-operate — notliing  of  a  gen- 
eral character  and  pertaining  to  the  general  welfare  of  the  Church, 
They  might  co-operate  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  build- 
ing of  churches  and  the  support  of  the  ministry,  in  the  work  of 
Home  and  Foreign  Missions,  in  Publication,  in  the  establishment 
and  support  of  Literary  and  Theological  Institutions,  in  a  word,  in 
all  the  great  work  of  the  Church. 

Impracticable,  utterly  impracticable,  perhaps  it  will  be  said,  is 
such  an  idea.  "  Can  two  7aalk  together  excep  they  he  agreed T' 
Have  we  not  heard  this  repeated  a  thousand  times,  and  have  we  not 
found  it  to  be  true?  Well,  it  may  be  impracticable.  It  may  be 
that  Lutherans  are  not  yet  cured  of  their  folly,  and  cannot  or  will 
not  co-operate.  But  remember,  we  are  not  considering  what  can  be 
done  with  all  our  impracticabilities,  but  what  might  be  done,  if  we 
were  willing  and  disposed  to  do  it. 

Perhaps  it  is  expected  that  I  should  specify  the  particular  depart- 
ments of  labor,  in  which  they  might  co  operate — name  the  general 
interests,  or  mark  out  the  common  ground,  where  they  might  meet, 
forgetting  differences,  and  unite  in  the  common  cause.  It  is  no 
doubt  imagined  by  some  that  it  would  be  much  easier  to  co-operate 
in  some  things  than  in  others,  and  that  a  beginning  thus  made  would 
gradually  result  in  a  more  general  co-operation.  But  I  do  not  see 
where  to  draw  this  line.  Some,  perhaps  many,  would  say,  in  the 
work  of  Foreign  Missions  at  least.  There,  it  may  be  said,  if  no- 
where else,  we  should  forget  our  differences  in  laboring  for  the  sal- 
vation of  the  heathen.  This  may  be  on  the  principle  that  the  field 
of  labor  is  so  distant  that  the  angle  of  vision  cast  by  our  differences 
vanishes  before  it  reaches  the  place  ;  or  possibly  because  our  efforts 
in  behalf  of  Foreign  Missions  have  been  so  lamentably  small,  that 
it  is  not  deemed  worth  while  to  contend  with  one  another.  But  if 
we  might  co-operate  in  the  work  of  Foreign  Missions,  why  not  in 
that  of  Home  Missions,  of  Education,  of  Church  Extension,  and  of 
all  general  Church  work?  Substantially  the  same  difficulties  meet  us 
at  every  point,  and  what  we  inight  do  in  one  we  might  about  as  well 
do  in  all. 

We  do  not  mean,  however,  that  there  could  not  be  a  practical  co- 
operation in  some  things  without  a  co-operation  in  all.  F'or  instance, 
we  might  agree  to  co-operate  in  the  work  of  Missions,  without 
abandoning  our  separate  educational  or  publication  interests;  or 


DR.    CROWN  S    ESSAY.  93 

the  very  reverse,  we  might  agree  to  co-operate  in  establishing  a 
great  Lutheran  University,  after  the  fashion  of  some  in  the  old 
world,  where  different  denominations  even  are  represented,  and  yet 
maintain  our  separate  interests  in  Missions  and  other  objects.  If  we 
must  co-operate  only  in  part,  and  religiously  cherish  a  horror  of  too 
much  unionism  even  among  Lutherans,  then  the  particular  part  must 
be  a  matter  of  individual  preference  or  voluntary  choice. 

That  such  reasonable  cooperation  might  take  place,  if  the  parties 
so  desired,  or  that  such  a  thing  is  not  utterly  impracticable,  a  few 
considerations  will  be  offered  to  show. 

The  differences  existing  between  these  four  bodies  are  not  really 
greater  than  those  which  have  existed  in  other  churches,  or  be- 
tween denominations,  where  such  co-operation  was  practically  main- 
tained. In  the  Episcopal  Church  there  exists  to-day  as  wide  a  diver- 
sity in  faith  and  feeling  as  prevails  among  these  four  bodies  of 
Lutherans,  and  yet  there  is  co-operation,  if  not  always  so  harmoni- 
ous, yet  quite  earnest  and  efficient.  Except  when  they  elect  a 
bishop,  or  some  other  matter  where  party  spirit  displays  itself,  they 
merge  their  differences  in  the  common  cause.  High  and  low  Church- 
men, ritualists  and  anti-ritualists,  all  recognize  each  other  as  belong- 
ing to  the  same  Church,  and  work  together.  Forty  years  ago  the 
differences  in  doctrine  and  spirit  and  practice  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  were  deemed  so  material  that  a  division  took  place,  and  two 
bodies  were  formed  as  distinct  and  antagonistic  as  any  two  of  our 
Lutheran  bodies.  Accompanying  this  division  were  the  severest 
criminations  and  recriminations,  with  litigations  in  court,  and  angry 
discussions  in  print.  The  cries  of  heresy  were  frecjuent  and  loud. 
Rival  institutions  of  different  characters  were  established  by  both 
parties,  and  for  a  period  of  thirty  years  a  vigorous  warfare  carried 
on.  Some  nine  or  ten  years  ago  a  treaty  of  peace  and  concord  was 
established,  the  two  bodies  became  one  again,  and  now  there  is  not 
only  co-operation,  but  organic  union.  And  yet  everybody  knows 
that  the  same  diversity  of  views  and  feelings  prevails  now  as  did 
during  the  thirty  years  of  division  and  separation. 

These  bodies  have  not  deemed  absolute  agreement  necessary  to 
united  and  harmonious  co-operation.  Cases  might  be  cited  of  de- 
nominations, bearing  different  names  and  with  different  confessions, 
co-operating  in  most  important  Church  work,  as  that  of  education 
and  missions.     Lutherans  themselves  have  united  with  other  denom- 


94  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

inations  in  the  erection  of  churches,  support  of  schools,  and  various 
interests  belonging  to  the  Church. 

To  this  there  will  be  raised  the  cry  of  unionistic  Lutheranism. 
Be  it  so.  It  is  not  quite  certain  that  a  unionistic  si)irit  is  any  worse 
than  a  separatistic  one,  or  that  needless  divisions  are  any  more 
pleasing  to  God  or  men  than  doubtful  unions.  The  Lutheran 
Church  may  be  in  quite  as  much  danger  of  sinning  in  the  direction 
of  exclusivism  and  separatism,  as  in  the  direction  of  too  great  a 
love  for  union.  But  we  only  cite  the  facts  to  show  what  has  been 
done,  and  what  might  be  done. 

It  is  repeated  again  and  again  by  Protestants  of  almost  every 
name,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  as  much  divided,  or  has 
existing  within  her  as  many  divisions  and  as  great  diversities  as  are 
found  in  the  Protestant  Church.  These  diversities  are  on  leading 
points  of  doctrine,  and  produce  strong  antagonisms,  resulting  some- 
times in  violent  controversies  and  bitter  denunciations ;  yet  they 
co-operate  earnestly,  and,  so  far  as  their  chief  ends  are  concerned, 
harmoniously.  In  this  respect,  the  wonderful  organization  and 
effective  co-operation  of  that  Church  commands  the  admiration, 
and  at  times  the  serious  apprehension,  of  states  and  empires,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world.  Their  union  and  co- 
operation in  spite  of  all  diversities  and  differences,  make  that  Church 
a  mighty  power  in  the  world.  Can  Lutherans  learn  nothing  from 
examples  such  as  these,  and  without  imitating  the  errors  of  Rome, 
might  not  we  at  least  learn  the  value  of  united  co-operation? 

It  may  perhaps  be  still  more  in  point  to  observe  that  diversities 
similar  to  those  now  existing  in  and  between  these  four  bodies  have 
existed  in  the  Lutheran  Church  from  the  very  beginning,  and  with- 
out destroying  her  unity  or  forbidding  co-operation.  This  may 
possibly  be  called  in  question,  but  our  appeal  is  to  the  testimony  of 
history.  The  two  leading  tendencies  were  exhibited  in  Luther  and 
Melanchthon ;  and  have  continued  to  show  themselves  in  every  suc- 
cessive period  from  that  day  until  the  present.  Not  now  to  speak  of 
other  and  even  wider  diversities  which  have  prevailed  within  the  old 
historic  Lutheran  Church,  these  two  diversities  have  always  existed, 
and  have  not  always  compelled  division  or  rendered  co-operation 
impracticable.  There  have  always  been  unyielding,  uncompromis- 
ing spirits,  who  have  sought  to  make  such  diversities  a  ground  of 
controversy  and  separation,  as  they  did  between  Luther  and  Me- 


DR.    BROWN  S    ESSAY.  95 

lanchthon,  but  not  always  with  success.  Luther  clung  to  Melanch- 
thon  and  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  in  spite  of  their  diversities,  and  in 
spite  of  the  efforts  of  those  who  sought  to  sow  the  seeds  of  discord 
and  division. 

It  has  indeed  been  the  boast  of  Lutherans  that  there  are  no 
Lutheran  sects,  that  her  system  of  doctrine  and  forms  of  worship  are 
so  catholic  and  liberal,  that  all  truly  Iwangelical  Christians  may 
find  a  home  in  her  inclosure ;  and  that  a  wide  diversity  of  views 
and  tastes  may  not  only  be  tolerated,  but  exist  of  right,  according 
to  her  free  and  liberal  spirit.  If  this  boast  has  any  true  foundation, 
then  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  Lutheranism  to  be 
exclusive  or  intolerant,  or  to  refuse  co-operation  where  it  is  practi' 
cable. 

Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Lutheran  Church  has  nourished 
a  Melanchthon  as  well  as  a  Luther,  an  Arndt,  a  Calixtus,  a  Spener, 
a  Francke,  and  a  Muhlenberg,  as  well  as  a  Flacius,  a  Calovius,  and 
others  of  that  school.  It  is  doubtful  if  any  one  of  these  divisions 
would  care  to  disown  men  of  whom  the  whole  Christian  world  may 
be  justly  proud.  But  if  there  is  room  in  this  grand  old  Church  for 
a  Luther  and  a  Melanchthon,  a  Calovius  and  a  Calixtus,  what 
hinders  the  co-operation  of  these  four  bodies  of  Lutherans  ?  Are 
there  any  greater  diversities  among  them  than  have  existed  in  the 
past,  when  there  was  co-operation?  Spener  was  charged  with  hold- 
ing and  teaching  more  deadly  errors  than  are  charged  against  all 
these  bodies  combined,  and  yet  all  now  claim  him.  History  records 
strange  reversals  of  ecclesiastical  judgments.  Let  us  beware  lest  our 
judgments  should  be  reversed  in  the  years  to  come,  if  we  decide 
against  co-operation  and  in  favor  of  continued  opjiosition. 

I  will  not  anticipate  objections.  If  any  are  aml)itious  to  see  the 
divisions  in  the  Lutheran  Church  perpetuated,  to  see  her  strength 
frittered  away  in  feeble  and  unpromising  efforts,  to  see  one  part  of 
the  Church  arrayed  against  another,  whilst  the  hosts  of  darkness 
present  a  united  front  against  our  advance  ;  if  they  are  satisfied  to 
live  and  die,  having  achieved  the  glory  of  keeping  alive  controver- 
sies which  centuries  of  debate  and  strife  have  done  little  or  nothing 
to  settle,  let  them  make  their  own  choice.  I  envy  them  not  thejr 
following  nor  their  glory.  I  shall  be  glad,  if  in  this  Diet  I  have  said 
one  word  that  may  have  any,  the  very  least,  weight  on  the  side  of 
union  and  co-operation  among  all  Lutherans  here  and  elsewhere 


96  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

throughout  the  world — a  union  that  would  be  orthodox  enough  and 
catholic  enough,  Lutheran  enough  and  liberal  enough,  to  embrace 
not  only  a  Luther  and  a  Melanchthon,  but  all  th(5se  who  have  the 
same  spirit  with  those  illustrious  reformers,  and  who  are  willing  ^^  to 
keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  Ojf  peace." 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  D.  P.  ROSENMILLER.     [General  Synod.) 

The  four  ecclesiastical  bodies  of  our  Church  agree  in  adopting 
the  Bible  as  a  supreme  authority  in  Christian  doctrine,  and  also  in 
the  acceptance  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  declaration  of  the 
fundamental  truths  of  the  Bible.  But  there  are  some  who  go  be- 
yond this,  and  enter  upon  ground  not  laid  down  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  By  laying  aside  all  confessional  writings  except  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  they  could  become  a  unit  in  faith,  at  the  same 
time  according  to  others  the  liberty  which  they  claim  for  them- 
selves. They  could  then  co-operate  in  the  education  of  ministers, 
with  feelings  of  kindness  toward  each  other,  and  renewed  interest 
in  Home  and  Foreign  Missions  would  exemplify  the  unity  of  the 
Church. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  W.  J.  MANN,  D.   D.  [General  Cotincil.) 

It  is  understood  that  silence  here  must  not  be  misunderstood, 
otherwise  I  would  feel  completely  vanquished.  It  is  certain  that  the 
Augsburg  Confession  alone  would  not  have  made  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Luther's  Small  Catechism  has  done  much  more  for  her 
practical  life.  Bro.  Rosenmiller  uses  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a 
cloak  for  unionistic  indifferentism.  The  language  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  is  so  short  and  concise,  that  it  is  often  unfairly  used  for 
whatever  perversions  may  be  desired.  It  must,  of  course,  be  inter- 
preted in  the  sense  in  which  the  authors  of  the  Confession  themselves 
understood  it.  Anything  else  is  a  falsification.  What  the  precise 
understanding  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is,  is  a  point  concerning 
which  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Luther's  Catechism  preceded  the 
Augsburg  Confession.    In  the  sense  of  the  Catechism  the  Confession 


DISCUSSION.  97 

is  to  be  understood  ;  otherwise  Luther  would  contradict  himself  even 
in  public  documents.  It  is  doing  a  great  wrong  toward  him  and 
the  Lutheran  reformers  to  place  such  a  sense  upon  their  words,  as 
for  instance  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Supper,  as  they  on  every 
given  occasion  most  strenuously  rejected,  and  regarded  as  heretical. 
To  use  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  bond  of  union  for  those  who 
seriously  differ  in  their  interpretation  of  it,  is  consequently  totally 
out  of  place. 

REMARKS  BY  PROF.  V.  L.  CONRAD.     {General  Synod.) 

I  do  not  wish  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Diet,  but  as  others  appear 
to  hesitate,  I  have  a  word  to  say  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  Dr. 
Mann.  He  remarked  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
one  of  the  great  distinctive  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  and  after  explaining  its  relations,  closed  by  ask- 
ing, "  How  can  there  be  co-operation  without  agreement  on  this 
important  and  fundamental  doctrine?" 

To  this  I  reply :  If  the  manne}-  of  our  Saviour's  presence 
in  the  Eucharist  be  made  the  great  central,  distinctive  and 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  instead  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Word  of  God,  the  uni- 
versal priesthood  of  believers,  and  other  doctrines. presented  by  Dr. 
Brown  in  his  essay  just  read ;  and  if  precise  uniformity  of  view 
respecting  the  manner  of  that  presence  be  made  a  necessary  condi- 
tion of  co-operation  among  Lutherans  and  Christians,  then,  of 
course,  no  such  co-operation  is  practicable  or  possible,  because 
diversities  of  view  on  that  aspect  of  doctrine,  and  on  others  of  equal 
importance,  exist  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  have  existed  from 
the  beginning. 

The  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  presence  in  the  Holy  Supper  is  de- 
clared in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  is  accepted.  But  the  m.m- 
ner  of  His  presence,  as  set  forth  in  the  Form  of  Concord,  is  not 
declared  in  the  Confession,  it  is  not  in  Christ's  words  of  the  institu- 


98  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

tion,  and  should  not,  therefore,  be  made  confessional  If  the  ex- 
planation in  the  Form  of  Concord  be  made  a  test  to  determine  who 
are  Christians  and  Lutherans,  then  Christ  himself  was  not  a  Chris- 
tian, and  Melanchthon,  who  wrote  the  Augsburg  Confession,  was 
not  a  Lutheran. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  W.  J.  MANN,  D.  D.    {General  Council.) 

No  Lutheran  has  ever  denied  the  salvation  of  any  one  who  be- 
lieved penitently  that  Christ  had  died  for  His  sins,  and  that  His 
blood  is  the  atoning  sacrifice  for  us.  But  this  is  not  the  question 
before  the  Church  in  her  opposition  to  others.  The  most  import- 
ant question  to  her  is  :  What  is  the  truth  ?  She  is  set  to  teach  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  therefore  to  watch  over  it.  She  has  no 
right  to  say  that  this  or  that  truth  is  of  no  account.  The  time  may 
come  when  even  those  apparently  far-off  points  may  be  of  the  high- 
est practical  value.  The  attack  against  any  part  of  the  fortification 
is  an  attack  against  the  whole  fortress.  We  have  to  guard  them  all, 
and  to  answer  for  them  all.  The  responsibility  of  the  Church  is 
not  identical  with  the  possibility  of  the  appropriation  of  salvation 
by  the  individual  soul.  It  is,  however,  a  great  mistake  to  suppose 
that  any  point  of  doctrine  has  no  fundamental  bearing.  As  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  as  clear  as  daylight  that  the  teachings  of 
the  Roman  Church  have  a  decidedly  Manichean  and  Docetic  tinge, 
while  the  Reformed  view  is  undeniably  materialistic,  rationalistic 
and  Ebionistic,  and  that  such  views,  if  applied  to  the  person  of  the 
God-man  himself,  will  most  certainly,  when  consistently  carried  out, 
destroy  the  idea  of  incarnation.  Luther  knew  why  he  laid  all  the 
stress  upon  the  "very  God"  and  the  "very  man"  in  the  person  of 
Christ.  If  the  finite  and  the  infinite,  man  and  God,  cannot  truly 
be  united,  then  the  person  Jesus  Christ  was  not  the  God-man.  But 
if  they  were  united  by  that  personal  union,  called  incarnation,  then 
they  can  never  be  severed,  as  we  would  then  have  to  fall  back  upon 
a  theophany,  or  even  the  personation  of  a  stage-actor.     But   since 


DISCUSSION.  99 

they  cannot  be  severed,  as  Christ  gives  to  us  Himself,  the  Lord's 
Supper  can  give  us  no  less  than  divinity  and  humanity,  conse- 
(^uently  also  His  flesh  and  blood.  He  gives  to  the  Church,  what  He 
gave  for  the  Church.  Considering  the  subject  under  these  aspects, 
we  are  very  far  from  thinking  that  the  question  about  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  mere  theological  or  scholastic  squabble.  There  is 
much  more  behind  it  than  most  people  suppose. 

REMARKS  OF  PROF.  V.  L.  CONRAD.     {Geueral  Synod.) 

I  accept  the  man  Christ  Jesus  as  Jehovah  God,  because  that  is 
clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  also  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. But  the  manner  in  which  he  is  present  in  the  elements  of 
the  Holy  Supper,  is  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  is 
not  in  the  Confession.  It  is  a  matter  of  inference  or  deduction.  It 
is  supernatural,  mystical,  mysterious — difficult  to  define,  explain  or 
understand.  Indeed,  it  is  acknowledged  to  be  inexplicable,  and 
should  not  therefore  be  held  as  properly  confessional,  but  free. 
Nor  should  it  be  magnified  beyond  measure  into  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine upon  which  to  dogmatize  and  separate  Lutheran  Christians, 
and  prevent  them  from  co-operating  in  the  work  which  Christ  has 
given  them  to  do. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  F.  W.  CONRAD,  D.  D.  {General  Synod.) 

The  able  papes  before  us  discusses  a  subject  of  great  practical  in- 
terest. It  presents  the  points  on  which  the  four  general  Lutheran 
bodies  in  this  country  agree  and  might  co-operate.  The  fact  of 
their  separate  existence  recalls  the  times  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  became  separated.  The  General  Synod  South  was  or- 
ganized in  consequence  of,  and  during  the  continuance  of  the  late 
civil  war.  The  admission  of  the  Franckean  Synod  at  York,  and  the 
decision  of  Dr.  Sprecher  at  Fort  Wayne,  became  the  occasion  of 
the  organization  of  the  General  Council.  Prior  to  iS6o,  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  South,  and  prior  to    1S64,  the  General   Council,  not 


I03  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

only  co-operated,  but  were  organically  united  with  the  General 
Synod  North. 

The  General  Synod  South  is  the  foster-child  of  the  General  Synod 
North,  and  in  their  confessional  standpoints  and  ecclesiastical  prin- 
ciples and  practices  these  two  bodies  are  still  identical.  We  can, 
therefore,  discover  no  valid  reason  why  they  should  not  be  able  to 
co-operate.  If  the  division  between  the  General  Synod  North  and 
the  General  Council  had  occurred  ten  years  earlier,  it  might  have 
been  regarded  as  a  product  of  the  ecclesiastical  tendencies  of  the 
age;  but  taking  into  consideration  the  time  and  circumstances  under 
which  it  occurred,  it  seems  to  us,  when  contemplated  from  our 
standpoint,  to  have  been  unnecessary,  and  should  have  been  avoided. 
While,  under  the  overrulings  of  Providence,  incidental  benefits  may 
have  resulted  from  their  organization  and  efforts  as  separate  bodies, 
the  direct  and  inevitable  evils  resulting  therefrom,  in  our  judgment, 
overbalance  them. 

The  question  introduced  by  the  topic  of  the  paper,  is  not  whether 
these  bodies  could  at  this  time  unite,  but  whether  they  m'ght  not 
co-operate  with  each  other  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work  of  evan- 
gelization at  home  and  of  missions  abroad  ?  While  their  differences 
still  prevent  union,  should  not  their  agreements,  which  are  more 
numerous  and  far  more  important,  secure  their  co-operation  ?  Born 
of  Lutheran  parentage  and  tracing  my  ecclesiastical  lineage  to  the 
Old  Trappe  Church,  ministered  to  by  Muhlenberg,  I  have  conse- 
crated myself  to  the  service  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  To  see  her 
divisions  healed,  her  scattered  forces  united,  and  her  mighty  ener- 
gies concentrated  in  the  prosecution  of  her  great  mission  in  this 
western  world — this  has  been  the  ecclesiastical  idol  of  my  life.  In- 
terpreted by  the  sacerdotal  prayer  of  Christ,  that  all  His  followers 
maybe  one,  this  must  be  "a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished  ;" 
and  stimulated  by  the  hope  of  its  realization,  let  us  all  continue  to 
labor  and  pray. 


DISCUSSION.  lOI 

REMARKS  OF  REV.   A.  C.  WEDEKIND,  D.   D.  {General  Syuod.) 

I  see  no  particular  difficulty  in  the  way,  why  these  general  bodies 
might  not  co-operate  in  the  various  enterprises  of  the  Church.  It 
surely  cannot  be  supposed  that  absolute  oneness  is  recjuired,  on  all 
the  details  of  a  theological  system,  for  such  co-operation.  If  that 
be  the  law,  then  there  is  scarcely  a  family  in  Christendom,  where 
co-operation  in  its  own  affairs  can  be  secured.  I  venture  to  say, 
sir,  that  there  is  as  much  general  doctrinal  and  cultus  assimilation, 
between  three  of  these  four  general  bodies,  at  least,  as  there  is  be- 
tween the  various  parts  of  each.  I  have  just  attended  a  special 
meeting  of  a  very  large  and  influential  Synod,  not  in  connection 
with  the  General  Synod,  which  was  to  settle  some  difficulties ;  and 
the  diversities  of  views  which  obtain  among  these  brethren,  are 
certainly  not  less  by  any  means  than  those  which  are  supposed  to 
exist  among  these  general  bodies.  The  discussions,  adjourned  from 
their  rival  papers  to  this  extra  session  of  Synod,  for  two  long  days, 
elicited  a  diversity  of  sentiment  declared  on  all  hands  to  be  most 
vital,  that  was  to  me  astonishing.  If  it  was  not  exactly  like 
Ephraim  envying  Judah,  and  Judah  vexing  Ephraim,  it  came  very 
near  to  it.  Yet  with  all  these  z^/A?/ differences,  these  brethren  have 
hitherto  co-operated  and  are  still  co-operating. 

Nor  is  the  case  very  much  different  in  the  good  old  Synod  which 
is  the  mother  of  us  all.  It  needs  only  a  glance  at  their  periodicals 
and  their  official  transactions  to  see  the  differences  that  prevail 
there.  As  far  as  we  are  now  informed,  these  differences  are  irrecon- 
cilable. And  it  would  certainly  take  a  bold  prophet  to  predict  that 
these  diversities  would  come  to  a  speedy  and  harmonious  oneness. 
If  an  armistice  has  been  concluded,  it  is  doubtless  on  the  general 
principle  of  agreeing  to  disagree.  And  yet  all  these  brethren  co- 
operate in  the  great  enterprises  before  them.  These  diversities  do 
not  interfere  with  their  Christian  activities.  Their  educational  and 
mission  operations,  and  their  institutions  of  learning  and  piety,  are 


102  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

alike  dear  to  them  all,  receiving  their  hearty  and  united  sympathies 
and  aid.  And  yet  I  hesitate  not  in  saying,  and  take  all  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  statement,  that  the  differences  of  most  of  these 
general  bodies  are  not  a  whit  greater  than  these  smaller  family  dif- 
ferences. 

Why  then  should  it  seem  an  unreasonable  thing  to  suppose  that 
such  co-operation  could  be  had  among  them  ?  It  surely  does  not 
demand,  as  already  stated,  a  oneness  of  sentiment  in  all  the  minii- 
tm  of  religious  views.  No  sane  man  will  demand  that.  Well, 
then,  sir,  it  is  absolutely  certain,  that  these  general  bodies  will  never 
be  of  one  mind  on  every  little  detail,  any  more  than  these  sub- 
bodies.  What  then?  Let  them  remain  in  eternal  antagonism? 
No,  sir  !  If  they  cannot  be  of  one  mind,  let  them  be,  like  the  first 
Christians,  of  one  heart  and  one  soul !  Let  charity  ascend  the 
throne,  and  trample  prejudice — that  devil's  wasp  — into  the  mire. 
Let  but  simple  honesty  be  done  to  all,  and  Luther's  explanation  of 
the  eighth  commandment  be  carried  out,  and  I  have  no  fears  of  the 
consequences.  That  matchless  allegorist,  John  Bunyan,  says  in  his 
Holy  War,  that  Mr.  Prejudice  fell  and  broke  his  leg ;  and  then 
adds:  "  I  wish  he  had  broken  his  neck."  From  my  innermost 
soul  I  say,  Ainen,  to  that  devout  wish  ! 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  R.  A.  FINK,  D.  D.  {General  Synod.) 
I  have  listened  to  the  discussions  in  this  Diet  with  deep  interest  from 
the  beginning,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  chief  cause  of  division 
in  the  Church,  and  difficulty  in  the  way  of  general  co-operation  in 
matters  of  general  interest,  grow  out  of  one  thing  ;  that  is,  the 
manner  of  explaining  or  attempting  to  explain  the  mode  or  manner 
of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  That  He  is  present  we 
all  agree  ;  but  as  to  the  hotv,  we  differ.  I  think  the  surest  way  to 
bring  about  union  and  general  co-operation  in  the  Church  would  be 
to  cease  requiring  a  uniform  explanation  of  the  manner  of  the 
Lord's  presence.  In  my  acquaintance  with  Lutherans  and  Lutheran 
ministers,  I  know  of  very  few,  if  any,  who  if  asked,   "  Do  you  be- 


DISCUSSION.  103 

lieve  that  the  Lord  is  really  present  in  the  Holy  Supper  ?'  would 
not  unhesitatingly  say,  "Yes,  I  believe."  "  I  believe  Chrst  meant 
what  He  said  when  He  declared,  '  This  is  my  body,'  etc. — t's  a  mys- 
tery— I  can't  explain  it."  For  myself,  I  adopt  unhesitaingly  the 
very  words  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  I  do  the  word  of  the  in- 
stitution itself.     I  call  it  a  sacramental  presence. 

Several  voices :  In  the  bread  ? 

Dr.  Fink :  Yes,  in  the  bread. 

The  difficulty,  I  repeat,  arises  from  an  attempt  to  expain  the  man- 
ner, and  the  viodus  operandi  of  imparting  the  promsed  blessing. 
This  is  the  fruitful  source  of  difference  amongst  us.  Let  us,  then, 
not  require  any  manner  of  explanation  of  the  myster'  of  the  Lord's 
presence  in  the  Eucharist,  as  we  require  none  of  the  .nystery  of  the 
Trinity  in  the  formula  of  Holy  Baptism.  This  difficulty  out  of  the 
way,  and  the  whole  Church,  it  seems  to  me,  could  eisily  be  brought 
together,  and  could  most  harmoniously  cooperrte  in  the  great 
work  of  the  spread  of  the  gospel ;  other  differeices  would  soon 
vanish. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  W.  S.  EMERY  {Gaieal  Council.) 

I  can  well  see  why  Dr.  Brown  refused  to  be  stopped  at  the  rap 
of  your  gavel  when  his  time  had  expired.  Theclosing  sentences  of 
his  paper  were  the  finest,  the  most  beautiful  md  touching,  in  his 
entire  essay. 

The  paper  was  prepared  with  considerable  are  and  research ;  but 
unfortunately,  it  repeatedly  used  the  phrase,  "the  four  general 
bodies  in  our  Church  all  agree  substantially y  This  term  "  substan- 
tially" was  used  throughout  the  entire  essa',  without  one  word  of 
definition.  The  undefined  use  of  this  pr')minent  and  equivocal 
word  constitutes  the  great  weakness  of  the  issay. 

This  is  especially  noticeable,  as  it  comes  historically  on  the  heels 
of  the  formulary  so  much  used  for  thirt}  years  in  the  reception  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.     I  refer  to  thot  formulary  which  reads : 


104 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


"We  tlieve  that  the  fundamental  doctrh-ies  of  God's  Word  are 
taught  i  a  manner  substantially  correct  in  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion," \iiich  was  formerly  used  as  a  means  of  evading  the  force  of 
any  articb  in  the  noble  Confession,  that  any  one  chose  to  reject. 

If  Dr.  Irown,  however,  mean  literally  what  he  says,  Avith  an  unex- 
ceptionabt  definition  in  its  historical  connection,  then  this  historical 
substantiaiagreement  must  be  received  in  the  spirit,  the  life,  the 
theology,  fte  entire  doctrinal  agreement,  in  the  very  words  of  our 
noble  Confusion.  The  candid  and  clear  belief  of  our  great  Con- 
fession, ana  an  upright  confession  of  its  doctrines  everywhere, 
would  form  \  glorious  bond  of  all  Lutherans,  in  all  languages  and 
all  lands. 


REMARIsk  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.   (General  Synod.) 

I  am  not  at  all  ambitious  to  occupy  the  time  which  belongs  to 
me  in  closing  tiis  discussion.  There  is  little  that  I  desire  to  add. 
If  I  have  failedto  make  myself  understood  in  the  forty-five  minutes 
allowed  me  to  rkd,  it  is  not  likely  that  I  will  improve  the  matter 
by  ten  minutes'  ektemporaneous  speaking. 

So  little  exceptLn  has  been  taken  to  the  essay  that  it  might  be 
inferred  that  we  a\e  all  in  favor  of  "  harmoniously  co  operating." 
If  this  be  so,  it  shaild  be  the  cause  of  devout  gratitude.  About  the 
only  exception  foriially  taken,  has  been  to  the  use  of  the  word 
"substantially,"  or  mat  these  bodies  "agree  substantially,"  without 
defining  the  term.  V\s  the  word  itself  is  a  defining  term,  it  seems 
ridiculous  to  ask  thanit  again  be  defined,  for  this  would  be  to  start 
on  a  process  that  has  no  end.  We  think  most  persons  understand 
the  iiieaning  of  the  Mord  subsia?itially ;  and  the  fling  at  one  of 
these  four  bodies  in  wiich  the  term  is  said  to  have  been  covertly 
used,  is  neither  timely  nor  wise.  That  body  is  not  here  on  trial, 
and  if  it  were,  it  wouldvnot  be  wanting  for  cheerful  and  willing  de- 
fenders. It  would  permps  be  wissr  and  better  for  any  who  are 
anxious  for  work  of  thisUdnd  to  look  well  to  their  own  defences. 


DISCUSSION.  105 

Should  any,  as  a  matter  of  taste,  prefer  any  other  term  to  express 
the  same  general  idea,  I  certainly  have  no  objections. 

For  myself,  I  have  no  such  difficulties  as  some  are  exercised  with, 
about  either  substantial  agreement,  or  harmonious  co-operation. 
The  platform  on  which  I  stand  is  broad  enough,  anfl  I  will  venture 
to  add  firm  enough,  to  receive  all  genuine  Lutherans.  I  stand 
where  I  have  stood  for  nearly  a  third  of  a  century,  and  where  I 
hope  to  continue  standing  as  long  as  I  am  permitted  to  remain  in 
the  Church  on  earth.  In  this  position  I  find  no  difficulty,  on  my 
part,  in  co-oparating  with  Lutherans  of  different  tendencies,  pro- 
viding only  that  they  recognize  me  as  I  recognize  them.  On  this 
broad  catholic  Lutheran  basis  I  could  fellowship  and  co  operate 
with  those  who  believe  a  great  deal  niDre  than  I  do.  I  should  not 
quarrel  with  any  for  receiving  all  the  Symbolical  Books,  and  believ- 
ing every  word  contained  in  them.  But  I  ask  the  liberty  of  not 
making  their  capacity  to  receive  and  believe  the  rule  for  me,  if 
I  am  not  able  to  believe  quite  so  much.  I  will  respect  their  faith  if 
they  respect  mine,  and  I  will  respect  their  Lutheranism  if  they  re- 
spect mine.  With  this  mutual  respect  for  each  other,  we  can  agree 
to  co-operate,  and  co-operate  as  Lutherans.  But  just  here  is  the 
difficulty.  Some  are  not  willing  to  grant  any  such  liberty,  or  to 
recognize  any  such  differences  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Whilst  I 
would  be  willing  to  acknowledge  their  Lutheranism,  though  prefer- 
ring my  own,  they  are  not  willing  to  acknowledge  mine.  And  if 
any  think  that  this  is  a  concession  of  their  superior  claims,  I  have 
only  to  say,  so  much  the  worse  for  them  that  they  are  thus  unwill- 
ing. We  are  as  well  satisfied  with  our  Lutheranism  as  they  can 
be  with  theirs.  Co-operation  on  our  part  is  invited  on  terms  alike 
scriptural  and  honorable  to  all,  and  if  any  will  not,  they  are  left  to 
God  and  their  own  consciences. 

lean  but  reiterate  the  points  "  wherein  we  agree,"  and  express 
the  conviction  that  they  are  quite  sufficient  for  harmonious  co- 
operation.    Other  denominations  around  us  have  differences  greater 

than  ours,  and  yet  co-operate.     Similar  differences  exist  in  each 
8   ' 


I06  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

one  of  these  four  bodies^  and  yet  they  severally  co-operate.  I  can 
see  no  good  reason  why  Lutherans  might  not  do  the  same.  We  are 
now  a  spectacle  and  a  wonder  to  many  round  about  us,  who  do  not 
understand  our  differences,  and  the  time  may  come  when  we  will 
be  a  greater  wonder  to  ourselves  than  we  now  are  to  others.  But 
I  have  said  all  that  I  care  at  present  to  say,  and  will  close  with  the 
expression  of  my  most  ardent  wishes  for  unity  of  spirit,  harmony 
and  co-operation  throughout  the  whole  Lutheran  Church. 
Adjourned. 


THIRD    SESSION. 


December  27th,  7:30  v.  m. 
After  prayer  by  Rev.  J.  F.  Reinmund,  D.  D.,  of  Lebanon,  Pa., 
the  fourth  paper  was  read. 

THE  HISTORY  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 
CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

RY    REV.    H.    E.    JACOBS,    D.    D. 
Franklin   Professor  in  Pennsylvania   College,    Gettysburg,  Pa. 

ALTHOUGH  the  foundations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Amer- 
ica are  only  now  beginning  to  be  really  laid,  yet  the  efforts 
of  the  present  cannot  be  fully  understood  without  a  consideration 
of  the  lessons  that  our  past  history,  as  a  Church  on  this  continent, 
has  taught  us. 

It  is  a  fortunate  circumstance,  that  we  possess  such  full  contem- 
porary records  of  many  of  the  earliest  struggles  of  Lutheranism 
in  America  ;^  and  that  in  later  years,  a  number  of  our  brethren 
have  been  so  diligent  in  presenting  to  our  English  speaking  people 
the  story  of  the  labors  of  their  fathers,  and  in  accumulating  mater- 
ial for  the  future  historian  of  our  Church.'     It  is  our  purpose  to 

1  (rt)  History  of  New  Sweden,  by  Israel  Acrelius,  formerly  Provost  of  the 
Swedish  churches  on  the  Delaware,  Stockholm,  1759.  Translated  by  W. 
M.  Reynolds,  D.  D.,  Philadelphia,  1874. 

(/')  Nachrichten  von  den  vereinigten  Deutschen  Ev.  Luth.  Gemein.  in  Amer- 
ica, absonderlich  in  Pennsylvanien.      Halle,  175S-87. 

(^)  The  Urlspergcr  Reports  from  the  Lutheran  Salzburger  pastors  in  Georgia. 

''■  History  of  the  American  Lutheran  Church,  by  E.  L.  Hazelius,  D.  D., 
Zanesville,  0.,  1846.  The  American  Lutheran  Church,  by  S.  S.  Schmucker, 
D.  D.,  Philadelphia,  1852.  The  Salzburgers  and  their  Descendants,  by 
Rev.  P.  A.  Strobel,  Baltimore,  1855.  Early  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  America,  by  C.  W.  Schaeffer,  D.  D.,  Philadelphia,  1857.  Memoir  of  the 
Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Melchior  Muhlenberg,  by  M.  L.  Stoever,  LL.D., 
Philadelphia,  1856.  History  of  the  German  Settlements  and  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  North  and  South  Carolina,  by  G.  D.  Bernheim,  D.  D.  To  these 
we  may  add  the  Reminiscences  of  Lutheran  Ministers,  by  Dr.  Stoever,  in  the 

(107) 


I08  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET, 

condense  into  the  limits  allowed  us,  the  leading  facts  scattered 
through  these  various  sources. 

The  Lutheran  Church  in  America  is  probably  over  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  old.  The  precise  year  of  earliest  origin,  is  involved 
somewhat  in  doubt ;  yet  we  may  consider  it  at  least  probable,  that 
fifteen  years  before  the  Baptists,  sixty-five  before  the  Presbyterians, 
and  one  hundred  and  forty  before  the  Methodists  had  made  a  be- 
ginning, and  only  a  year  or  two  after  the  landing  of  the  Puritans 
on  Plymouth  Rock,  there  were  faithful  confessors  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  already  on  these  shores;  and  that  the  land  which,  in  1523, 
gave  our  faith  its  first  martyrs,  gave  it  almost  a  century  later  its  first 
witnesses  in  this  western  world,  in  fulfillment  of  Luther's  pre- 
diction that  the  voices  of  those  two  youths  who  were  burned  in  the 
Netherlands,  would  yet  be  heard  proclaiming  the  testimony  of 
Jesus  to  many  nations.^  Worthy  successors  of  their  martyred  coun- 
trymen, were  the  Dutch  Lutherans  of  New  Amsterdam.  Few  in 
number,  among  their  countrymen  of  the  Reformed  faith,  no  per- 
suasion could  induce  them  to  enter  into  the  communion  of  the 
Churches  that  subscribed  to  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and 
persecution  proved  as  unavailing  as  persuasion.*  They  were  forced 
to  meet  in  private  houses;  they  were  fined;  ;^ioo  was  the  penalty 

Evangelical  Review,  and  his  contributions  to  Sprague's  Annals  of  the  Amer- 
ican Lutheran  Pulpit,  and  McCHntock  and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia,  and  several 
articles  by  Dr.  W.  M.  Reynolds,  in  the  Evangelical  Review  (Swedish  Churches 
on  the  Delaware,  i :  161 ;  Lutheran  Church  in  Netherlands  and  New  York, 
6:  303;  German  Emigration  to  North  America,  13:  i;  Scandinavians  in  the 
N.  W.,  3:  399,  etc.).  The  Evangelisches  Magazin  of  Dr.  Helmuth,  the 
Lutheran  Intelligencer  of  Dr.  D.  F.  Schaeffer,  and  the  Ltdheran  Magazine  of 
Dr.  G.  A.  Lintner,  contain  considerable  historical  material.  We  have  been 
greatly  aided  in  the  preparation  of  this  paper  by  the  use  of  the  Library  of  the 
Historical  Society  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 
Gettysburg,  which  contains  an  almost  complete  set  of  the  Minutes  of  Lutheran 
Synods  in  America,  and  much  other  rare  and  valuable  material. 

'We  find  Lutherans  mentioned  in  the  earliest  classification  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  New  Netherlands,  according  to  their  faith.  See  report  of  the 
Jesuit  Father  Jogue  (1643),  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  IV.  p.  19. 
Hence  the  inference  that  there  were  Lutherans  in  the  colony  from  the  begin- 
ning in  1622. 

The  same  paper  notices  the  presence  in  New  Amsterdam  also  of  Roman 
Catholics,  English  Puritans  and  Anabaptists,  called  Mnists. 

*For  details,  see  Brodhead's  History  of  New  York,  L  582,  617,  634,  642. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  IO9 

for  preaching  the  Gospel ;  £^2^  for  attending  a  Lutheran  service; 
they  were  imprisoned;  their  "conventicles"  were  broken  up. 
Even  the  year  after  the  West  India  Company  had  rebuked  this  in- 
tolerance of  Gov.  Peter  Stuyvesant,  Rev.  John  E.  Goetwater,  sent 
as  a  Lutheran  pastor  by  the  consistory  of  Amsterdam,  was  saved 
from  immediate  banishment  upon  reaching  New  Amsterdam,  only  by 
his  ill  health,  which  procured  a  stay  of  procedure  for  four  months. 
In  the  published  archives  of  the  State  of  New  York,''  there  is  an  in- 
teresting letter  from  Megapolensis  and  Drisius,  Reformed  pastors, 
dated  August  5th,  1657,  recounting  "  the  injuries  that  threaten  this 
community  by  the  encroachments  of  the  heretical  spirits,"  in  which 
the  following  occurs :  "It  came  to  pass  that  a  Lutheran  preacher, 
named  Joannes  Ernestus  Goetwater,  arrived  in  the  ship,  the  Mill, 
to  the  great  joy  of  the  Lutherans,  and  especial  discontent  and  dis- 
appointment of  the  congregation  of  this  place;  yea,  of  the  whole 
land,  even  of  the  English.  *  *  We  already  have  the  snake  in 
our  bosom."  *  *  In  conclusion,  these  earnest  champions  of  the 
Reformed  faith,  beg  that  "a  stop  be  put  to  the  work,  which  they 
seem  to  intend  to  push  forward  with  a  hard  Lutheran  pate,  in  de- 
spite and  opposition  of  the  regents  "  Our  Dutch  brethren  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  unwilling  to  attend  the  Reformed  service,  and  to 
show  proper  respect  to  the  religious  convictions  of  their  country- 
men ;  but  the  controversy  centered  especially  upon  the  administra- 
tion of  Baptism,  in  which  the  effort  was  made  to  extort  from  them 
the  promise  to  train  up  their  children  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Synod 
of  Dort.  The  conquest  of  the  colony  by  the  English,  in  1664, 
gave  the  Lutherans  religious  liberty  ;  but  nine  years  before  this  de- 
liverance, the  same  power  that  oppressed  the  Dutch  Lutherans, 
when  it  prevailed  in  New  Sweden,  had  banished  two  of  the  three 
Swedish  Lutheran  pastors.  The  third  was  allowed  to  remain,  be- 
cause other  troubles  diverted  the  attention  of  the  government,  and 
"we  had  no  Reformed  preacher  to  establish  there,  or  who  under- 
stood their  language.  "•*  A  recent  writer  has  brought  to  light  the 
history  of  a  colony  of  Dutch  Lutherans  on  James'  Island,  S,  C,  as 

^  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  3  :  103. 

^ Ev.  Review,  i:  176,  from  O'Callaghan's  History  of  the  New  Netherlands 
2  :  289,  290,  translation  of  letter  of  Dominie  Megapolensis,  by  Rev.  Dr.  De 
Witt. 


I  lO  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

early  as  1674,  and  the  proscription  wliich  they  suffered  from  the 
Church  of  England.'' 

Meanwhile,  the  Lutheran  Church  had  gained  another  foothold  in 
this  country.  Almost  on  the  very  territory  on  which  this  diet  is 
to-day  assembled,  the  colony  of  New  Sweden  was  planted,  two  hun- 
dred and  forty  years  ago.  The  first  Lutheran  Church  edifice  on 
this  continent  was  erected  within  the  walls  of  Fort  Christina,  now 
Wilmington,  Del  ,  probably  in  1638  ;  and  the  first  Lutheran  minis- 
ter was  the  Rev.  Reorus  Torkillus,  who  after  eight  years'  service 
here,  died  in  1643.*^  Campanius,  the  second  pastor,  was  the  first 
Protestant  missionary  to  the  North  American  Indians,  being  several 
years  earlier  in  this  work  than  the  distinguished  John  Eliot.  He 
translated  Luther's  catechism  into  the  Delaware  language,  and  to 
his  influence  and  that  of  his  successors,  belongs  much  of  the  credit 
for  the  success  of  the  Indian  policy  of  William  Penn  f  as  the  In- 
dians with  whom  Penn  had  to  do  were  those  among  whom  these 
Swedish  pastors  had  lived  and  labored.  The  first  Lutheran  Church 
in  Pennsylvania  was  built  in  Delaware  county,  in  1646.'"  Not  long 
after,  the  present  limits  of  this  city  were  entered.  An  old  block- 
house at  Wicacoa  served  for  awhile  as  a  house  of  worship,  and  on 
its  site,  in  1700,  Gloria  Dei  Church  was  dedicated."  Altogether, 
there  were  at  least  six  of  these  churches,  ministered  to  for  over  a 
century  and  three-quarters,  by  a  succession  of  thirty-five  pastors, 
most  of  them  men  of  strong  faith  and  eminent  devotion,  the  last  of 
whom  died  in  1831.'-  They  were  presided  over  by  Provosts,  of 
whom  the  most  prominent  were  the  historian  Acrelius  and  Von 
Wrangel.  Some  of  their  ministers  preached  in  English,  German 
and  Dutch,  besides  Swedish.  Thus  we  find  Rudman  serving  the 
Dutch  Lutheran  Church  at  Albany'^  in  the  beginning  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  Dylander  organizing  into  congregations  the  Ger- 
mans of  Lancaster  and  Germantown,  and  Von  Wrangel  preaching 
for  the  churches  at  Lancaster  and  York.  "  Three  of  their  pastors 
in   1703,  administered,  in  Gloria  Dei  Church,  the  first  rite  of  Lu- 

'Bernheim's  History,  56.  s^crelius,  85. 

'Acrelius,  85,  366.  Schaeffer's  Early  History,  21,  Dr.  Reynolds  in  Ev 
Review,  I  :  173.  A  copy  of  this  catechism  is  in  the  library  of  the  Lutheran  His- 
torical Society  at  Gettysburg. 

10  Acrelius,  43.  n  Acrelius,  203.  ^2  Acrelius,  313,  344,  349. 

13  Acrelius,  213.  "^^Ev.  Review,  I  :  142. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY,  1 1  I 

theran  ordination  in  America,  the  clergyman  ordained  being  the 
Rev.  Justus  Falkner,'"'  serving  congregations  in  Montgomery 
county,  and  afterward  pastor  of  the  Dutch  Lutheran  Church  in  New 
York.  In  1743,  the  year  after  tlie  arrival  of  the  patriarch  Muhlen- 
berg, a  union  between  the  Germans  and  Swedes  was  proposed ;  but 
was  frustrated  chiefly  by  the  efforts  of  Nyberg,  whose  affiliations  with 
the  Moravians  rendered  him  especially  hostile  to  Muhlenberg,  as 
the  latter  had  just  rescued  the  German  Church  in  Philadelphia  from 
Zinzendorf/"  and  whose  erratic  career  subsequently  occasioned  the 
church  at  Lancaster  so  much  trouble/"  and  resulted  in  his  deposi- 
tion by  the  Swedish  Archbishop.^^  At  the  organization  of  the  Min- 
isterium  of  Pennsylvania  in  this  city,  in  1748,  two  of  their  pastors 
were  present  and  took  a  prominent  part  in  all  the  proceedings,'"  and 
at  succeeding  meetings  of  the  Ministerium,  recorded  in  the  Halle 
Reports,  the  Swedisli  pastors  were  always  represented,  Provost  Von 
Wrangel  in  his  day  being  no  less  active  on  the  floor  of  Synod  than 
Dr.  Muhlenberg  himself.  But  unfortunately  as  the  churches  be- 
came anglicized,'^"  neither  the  Swedish  nor  German  ministers  could 
supply  them  with  sufficient  English  preaching,  and  English  Lutheran 
ministers  were  not  to  be  found.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
in  its  weakness,  had  been  nursed  by  the  Swedish  Lutheran  pastors. 
When  unable  to  worship  in  a  house  of  their  own,  the  Lutherans  had 
permitted  the  Episcopalians  to  hold  service  regularly  in  their  church  ; 
and  Lutheran  ministers  who  had  command  of  the  English  language, 
had  repeatedly  served  them  for  considerable  periods,  both  in  the 
pulpit,  and  in  pastoral  ministration.-^  Occasionally  an  Episcopal 
minister  would  also  fill  a  Swedish  Lutheran  pulpit,  and  they  would 
even  assist  in  the  consecration  of  the  churches  of  each  other. ■■  The 
result,  therefore,  was  almost  inevitable,  that,  in    their   perplexity, 


iSAcrelius,  214.  l6Acrelius,  245, 

1"  Hall.  Nach.,  67,  69,  230,  232,  673,  1354.  18  Acrelius,  336. 

19  Especially  in  the  ordination  of  Rev.  William  Kurtz,  Hall.  Nach.,  2S4. 

21  Divine  service  in  English  became  necessary  in  the  Swedish  Churches  as 
early  as  1750.  See  Acrelius,  305,  342.  The  manner  in  which  it  was  intro- 
duced, more  fully  given,  p.  360. 

21  Acrelius,  219,  220,  361.  This  service  not  only  was  rendered  without  com- 
pensation, but  often,  as  Acrelius  states,  without  any  return  to  the  Lutheran 
pastors  of  expenses  incurred  in  this  extra  service. 

^^  Acrelius,  361,  220. 


112  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

they  would  turn  to  the  Episcopal  Church  for  help,  and  that  they 
would  be  sure  to  find  it.  Episcopal  ministers  first  became  the  as- 
sistants of  the  Lutheran  pastors.  The  charters  were  first  altered,  so 
as  to  allow  the  services  of  either  Lutheran  or  Episcopal  pastors  ;^^ 
and  the  Lutheran  name  at  length  disappeared  altogether.'" 

The  German  emigration  to  American  began  about  1680,-''  although 
we  find  no  record  of  a  German  Lutheran  Church  or  pastor  until  the 
next  century.  1703  is  the  date  of  Falkner's  ordination,  and  his 
early  labors  in  Montgomery  county. ^*'  1708  notes  the  emigration 
of  the  Palatinate  pastor  Kocherthal,-'  and  his  little  colony,  to  the 
west  bank  of  the  Hudson,  where  on  the  present  site  of  Newburgh, 
fifty  acres  were  given  each  colonist,  and  a  glebe  of  five  hundred 
acres  donated  "  for  the  maintenance  of  a  Lutheran  minister  and  his 
successors  forever,"  but  which  unfortunately  at  last  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Episcopalians.  In  17 10,  other  Lutheran  Palatinates 
settled  in  the.  neighborhood  of  Newbern,  North  Carolina.^**  About 
the  same  time,  another  band,  after  a  voyage  of  almost  incredible 
hardship,  reached  New  York,  and  with  many  sufferings,  making 
their  way  through  the  wilderness,  purchased  land  from  the  Indians, 
and  formed  the  settlements  at  Schoharie. '■^^  Others  found  a  home  on 
both  sides  of  the  Hudson,  a  hundred  miles  north  of  New  York,'^°  and 
together  with  the  Dutch  Lutheran  element  previously  settled,  formed 
the  basis  for  the  twenty-two  congregations,  now  in  Columbia, 
Dutchess  and  Ulster  counties. ^^  Others  remained  in  New  York,  and 
added  to  the  strength  of  the  Dutch  congregation  f'^  while  still  others 

''^^  Ev.  Revieiv,  i:  194.     Hazelius'  History,  p.  23. 

2*  As  late  as  1873,  the  Church  at  Upper  Merion,  Montgomery  co.,  still  re- 
mained independent  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  although  ministered  to  by  Epis- 
copal rectors.     Reynolds'  Acrelius,  350. 

25  Hall.  Nach.,  665.  =6  Supra. 

*^  The  history  of  this  colony  is  given  with  considerable  fullness  in  the  Docu- 
mentary History  of  New  York,  3:  540-607.  See  especially  the  protest  of  Rev. 
Knoll  against  the  transfer  of  the  glebe  to  the  English  Church,  p.  583. 

28  Fullest  account  in  Bernheim,  p.  67  seq.     See  also  Ev.  Review,  13:    19. 

29  For  many  cotemporary  documents,  see  Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  Vol.  3  ;  also 
article  of  Ev.  Review,  above  quoted;  Schaefifer  72  seq.;  Hazelius,  26. 

30  Hall.  Nach.,  74.     Ev.  Reviezv,  13:  27.  31  U.  S.  Census  for  1S70. 
^'^  Ev.  Revieiv,  13:  24.      Quart.  Review,  7:  272. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  I  1 3 

settled  in  Pennsylvania  along  the  Swatara  andTulpehocken.'"  The 
Dutch  congregations  in  New  York  and  Loonenburgh  were  diligent 
in  caring  for  their  German  brethren ;  but  in  Pennsylvania,  notwith- 
standing the  ministrations  of  the  Swedish  pastors,  the  spiritual  desti- 
tution among  the  Germans  was  appalling,  and  the  people  were  at 
the  mercy  of  impostors.  The  deputation  sent  to  Europe  in  1 733 
by  the  churches  of  Philadelphia,  New  Hanover  and  Providence, 
present  in  the  Halle  Reports  a  sad  picture  of  the  condition  of  our 
Church  at  that  time  "in  a  land  full  of  sects  and  heresy,  without 
ministers  and  teachers,  schools,  churches  and  books. "^*  The  result 
of  this  mission  was  the  identification,  with  our  succeeding  history, 
of  the  names  of  Muhlenberg,  Brunnholtz,  Handschuh,  Kurtz, 
Schaum,  Schultze,  Heintzleman,  Helmuth,  Schmidt  and  others,  who 
were  sent  from  Halle  during  the  period  from  1742  to  1769.  We 
cannot  dwell  upon  the  almost  superhuman  labors  of  Muhlenberg 
and  his  associates,  in  contending  with  imposiors,  organizing  churches, 
founding  schools,  preaching  the  Gospel  from  house  to  house  as 
well  as  in  churches,  and  diligently  supplying  the  long-neglected 
Wants  of  their  countrymen. 

Meanwhile,  in  1734,  the  Salzburgers,  refugees  from  Romish  per- 
secution, with  their  two  ministers,  Bolzius  and  Gronau,  had  settled 
at  Ebenezer,  Ga.;'*^  and  before  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, a  church  had  been  established  as  far  north  as  Maine,'"'  and 
important  centres  had  been  formed  in  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  the 
Carolinas. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  contury,  the  prospect  pre- 
sented to  an  observer  would  have  been  as  follows  :  The  IMinister- 
ium  of    Pennsylvania  with  its  semi-centenniaP"  already  past,  and 

33  Hall.  Nach.,  976.     Schaeffer,  76.  »*  Hall.  Nach.,  4. 

35  Prof.  Walker,  late  Superintendent  of  the  U.  S.  census,  has  fallen  into  the 
same  error  as  Bancroft,  in  his  paper  in  the  volume,  "  The  First  Century  of  the 
Republic,"  p.  232,  by  referring  to  the  Salzburgers  as  Moravians.  Strobel,  IJern- 
heim,  Hazelius,  Schaeffer,  Muhlenberg's  Journal  in  Ev.  Rci>ic7v,  I  :  390,  534; 
2  :  113  ;  3  :  1 15,  418,  582  ;  4:  172,  and  Dr.  Stoever's  memoirs  of  Bolzius,  and 
J.  E.  and  C.  F.  Bergman,  Ev.  Review,  9:  I,  13  ;  6:  553,  give  interesting  de- 
tails. 

36  For  the  history  of  this  congregation,  see  article  of  Dr.  Pohlman,  in  Ev. 
Revie-iv,  20:  440. 

37  The  date  of  organization  was  August  14th,  174S.     Hall.  Nach.,  2S4. 


114  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  last  of  its  foiinders^^  deceased  for  four  years,  embraced  also 
Maryland  and  Virginia,  and  reported  53  ministers,  300  congrega- 
tions, and  a  population  of  50,000  families.^"  The  Ministerium  of 
New  York,  organized  fifteen  years  before  with  fourteen  ministers,*" 
had  decreased  to  eight. "'^  At  least  six  ministers  were  serving  congre- 
gations in  the  Carolinas,*'  gathered  three  years  afterwards  into  the 
North  Carolina  Synod.  Altogether,  after  the  efforts  of  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-five  years,  we  numbered  less  than  70  pastors, 
where  we  now  have  2900."  Zion'S;  the  mother  church  in  this  city, 
of  which  Dr.  Helmuth  and  Rev.  Schmidt  were  the  joint  pastors, 
was  strong,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  a  year  in  which 
the  mortality  was  not  exceptional,  187  deaths  are  reported  in  the 
congregation.'**  It  supported  four  parochial  schools,  with  Dr.  C.  F. 
Endress,  then  a  young  man  of  twenty-five,  as  superintendent,  at- 
tended by  250  pupils.*^  Dr.  Helmuth*"  was  also  Professor  in  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  in  which  he  had  succeeded  his  prede- 
cessor in  the  pastoral  office,  Dr.  Kunze.  Dr.  F.  D.  Schaeffer  was  at 
Germantown  j  C.  F.  Wildbahn,  after  a  pastorate  of  eighteen  years, 
was  still  performing  occasional  ministerial  acts  at  Reading ;  Dr. 
Henry  Ernst  IMuhlenberg  was  at  Lancaster ;  Jacob  Goering  at 
York  ;  Henry  Mueller  at  Harrisburg  ;  John  Grob  was  organizing 
the  church  at  Gettysburg;  Dr.  J.  G.  Schmucker  was  at  Hagers- 
town ;  Dr.  Geo.  Lochman,  at  Lebanon;  Dr.  F.  W.  Geissen- 
hainer,  sr.,  in  Montgomery  county;  Dr.  J.  D.  Kurtz,  in  Balti- 
more; Christian  Streit,  at  Winchester,  and  J.  G.  Butler,  missionary 
of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  in  West  Virginia  and  Ten- 
nessee. In  the  New  York  Ministerium,  Dr.  Kunze  was  pastor 
in    New   York,    and    Professor   in    Columbia    College,   while    his 

3^The  founders  of  the  Ministerium  were  Dr.  H.  M.  Muhlenberg,  f  1787,  the 
Swedish  Provost  Sandin,  who  died  the  same  month  that  the  Ministerium  was 
organized,  Handschuh,f  1764,  Brunnholtz,  f  1758,  Schaurii,f  1778,  J.  N. 
Kurtz,  f  1794,  Hartwig,  f  1796.  Naesman,  the  second  Swedish  pastor,  re- 
turned to  Sweden  a  few  years  afterward,  and  the  date  of  his  death  is  uncertain. 

39  Hazard's  Register  of  Pennsylvania,  4  :  372. 

*°  Hazelius,  109.  41  Hazard,  as  above.  *'  j)o. 

*3  Lutheran  Almanac  for  1878,  2905  ;  Lutherische  Kalender,  2914. 
**  Hazard's  Register,  4:  373.  ^^  Hazard,  do.;  £v.  Review,  6:  23. 

*^For  the  most  of  these  data,  see  Stoever's  Reminiscences,  in  Evangelical 
Review,  and  Sprague's  Annals  of  the  American  Lutheran  Pulpit. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  I  I  5 

English  assistant  Strebeck  was  organizing  a  congregation,  wliich 
afterwards  went  over  bodily  to  the  Episcopal  Church,  not  however 
until  their  pastor  had  preceded  them  several  years  "  Farther  south 
C.  A.  G.  Stork  and  Paul  Henkel  were  laboring  as  yet  harmoniously 
in  North  Carolina,  both  in  that  very  year  astonished  and  confused 
by  some  of  the  earlier  revival  movements  of  this  country/*  The 
venerable  John  N.  Martin,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  pastor  of  the 
church  at  Charleston,  S.  C,  had  died  only  five  years  before;  and 
the  churches  at  Ebenezer  and  Savannah  were  still  served  by  the 
elder  Bergman.  Dr.  Kunze  was  acknowledged  as  among  the  first 
Oriental  scholars  in  America,'*"  J.  F.  Schmidt,  of  Philadelphia,  was 
an  accomplished  astronomer,  while  Muhlenberg,  of  Lancaster,  and 
Melsheimer,  of  Hanover,  by  their  cultivation  of  special  branches  of 
Natural  History,  still  hold  an  eminent  place  among  naturalists.  One 
of  our  ministers  had  been  a  Major-General  in  the  Revolutionary 
army,  and  another,  his  brother,  the  first  speaker  of  the  National 
House  of  Representatives.  Franklin  College  at  Lancaster,  under 
the  joint  control  of  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  with  Dr.  H.  E.  Muh- 
lenberg as  its  first  President,  had  been  established  thirteen  years 
before.^"  The  L^niversity  of  Pennsylvania  and  Dickinson  College 
both  contained  among  their  trustees  representative  men  of  our 
Church. '^1  Dr.  Helmuth  and  Rev.  Schmidt  had  for  fifteen  years 
already  been  conducting  a  private  theological  seminary  in  Phila- 
delphia, in  which  such  men  as  J.  G.  Lochman,  Endress,  J.  G. 
Schmucker,  J.  Miller,  Baker,  Butler,  Goering,  Baetes  and  others, 
were  prepared  for  the  ministry.^''  Two  years  after  this,  viz.,  in  1S02, 
the  labors  of  Dr.  Lochman,  sr.,  in  the  same  direction,  began." 
The  introduction  of  English  preaching  was  already  agitating  the 
congregations.  Dr.  Kunze,  at  an  early  period,  had  insisted  on  its 
necessity.  At  successive  elections  from  1803-6  in  the  German  church 
in  this  city,  the  opponents  of  English  preaching  prevailed  by  only  a 
small  majority.  In  tlie  election  of  1806,  1400  votes  were  polled,  and 
as  the  result,  a  colony  withdrew  and  founded  St.  John's,  the  first  ex- 
clusively English  Lutheran  church  in  Pennsylvania.     In  181 4,  the 

"  Qitarlerly  Review,  7:   27S.  ■'8  Beinheim,  350. 

^"See  the  opinions  of  Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  of    Princeton,  and  J.  \V.  Francis. 
M.  D.,  of  New  York,  in  Sprague's  Annals,  55. 

^^  Ev.  Reviccv,  10:  534.  ^^  Ev.  Review,  lO:  2SS,  290. 

S2  Ev.  Review,  lo:  555  ;    6:  5,  "  ^-^   Revieiv,  6:  21. 


Il6  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

desire  for  English  preaching  again  became  strong  in  the  German 
congregation,  and  led  in  the  course  of  time  to  the  founding  of  the 
second  English  church,  St.  Matthew's,  whose  guests  we  are  to-day.^* 
These  were  not  isolated  occurrences,  but  symptoms  of  a  movement 
that  was  manifesting  itself  throughout  the  entire  country.  So  strong 
was  it,  that  in  1805  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  felt  the  neces- 
sity of  passing  the  enactment  that  it  must  remain  a  German  speak- 
ing body,^^  and,  in  181 4,  Drs.  J.  D.  Kurtz  and  G.  Lochman,  in  the 
name  of  the  same  Ministerium,  published  an  address^®  devoted  mostly 
to  the  necessity  of  maintaining  German  schools  and  German  divine 
service.  We  can  fully  sympathize  with  the  regret  of  these  worthy 
men,  that  with  the  loss  of  the  German  language,  the  religious  in- 
struction of  the  young  was  neglected,  German  diligence  and  frugal- 
ity abandoned,  and  the  precious  hymns,  and  prayers,  and  books  of 
devotion  forgotten;  yet  that  even  adherence  to  the  German  would 
not  necessarily  preserve  a  congregation  in  the  faith  of  our  Church, 
was  demonstrated  by  the  sad  history  of  the  congregation  of  the  ven- 
erable Dr.  Kurtz  himself.  The  anglicizing  of  the  people  was  inevi  • 
table ;  and  the  call  made  upon  the  Church  then,  as  now,  was  to  so 
control  this  process  that  it  would  involve  only  a  change  of  language, 
and  not,  at  the  same  time,  of  faith.  The  New  York  Ministerium, 
owing  perhaps  to  the  presence  of  the  Dutch  element, ^^'^  the  earlier 
German  settlement,  and  the  diminishing  of  the  tide  of  German  emi- 
gration to  that  State,  was  comparatively  soon  anglicized.    As  early 


5*  Hazard's  Register,  4  :  372. 

55 The  resolutions  are  as  follows :  "  i.  The  present  Lutheran  Ministerium  in 
Pennsylvania  and  adjacent  States  must  remain  a  German-speaking  Ministerium, 
and  no  proposition  can  be  entertained  which  would  render  necessary  any  other 
language  than  the  German,  in  Synodical  meetings  and  business  transactions. 
2.  English-speaking  Lutherans,  who  cannot  understand  the  German  service, 
may  organize  themselves  into  congregations  of  their  own.  3,  In  case  such 
English  Lutheran  congregations  be  established,  the  German  Lutheran  Ministe- 
rium will  regard  their  members  as  brethren,  and  is  willing  to  recognize  their 
delegates,  and  also,  after  an  examination,  their  ministers  as  members  of  Synod, 
provided  they  submit  to  its  constitution,  and  attend  the  meeting  of  Synod." 
Passed  at  Germantown,  June  12,  1S05,  and  published  in  the  "  Ministerial  Ord- 
nung"of  1813,  p.  19. 

56  Address  to  "  all  the  Germans  of  the  United  States,  and  especially  the  Ger- 
man inhabitants  of  Virginia." 

56a  jS;^.  Rtvieiv,  6:  327. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  I  I  / 

as  1815,  it  was  almost  entirely  English  ;  although,  unfortunately, 
wanting  in  a  clear  confession  of  our  faith,  and  hence  unfit  for  the 
foundation  of  the  work  of  our  Church  in  the  English  language. 

Nor  were  the  churches  of  that  period  deficient  in  missionary  ac- 
tivity. In  1806,  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  appointed  three 
missionaries.  One  died.  A  second  set  out  from  New  Market,  Va., 
traveled  southwest  three  hundred  miles  to  the  Great  Kanawha; 
thence  northwest  sixty-six  miles  to  Chillicothe ;  thence  southwest 
forty  miles  to  Brush  Creek ;  thence  seventy  miles  to  Lebanon  ; 
thence  north  thirty  miles  to  Montgomery  Co.,  O.  The  report 
states:  "Our  tongue  cannot  describe  the  triumphs  won  by  his 
presence,  or  depict  the  impression  made  on  many  hearts."  The 
third  traveled  thirteen  hundred  miles  in  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
two  days,  and  preached  sixty-seven  times.  A  similar  report  was 
made  to  Synod  two  years  later. 

Our  first  regular  theological  school,  Hart  wick  Seminary,  New 
York,  was  established  in  1816,°"  with  Rev.  Dr.  Hazelius  as  the  first 
professor  of  theology.  In  1818,  against  the  advice  of  the  mother 
Synod,  the  Synod  of  Ohio  was  formed  by  the  missionaries  of  the 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  living  west  of  the  Alleghanies,  and 
nine  years  afterwards  numbered  25  ministers  and  95  congrega- 
tions.^^ In  1820,  the  Synod  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  was  organ- 
ized, and  the  rupture  occurred  in  the  North  Carolina  Synod,  that 
resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  Tennessee  Synod. ^^  The  same 
year  witnessed  the  convention  held  at  Hagerstown,  by  the  delegates 
of  the  Ministeriums  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  and  the  Synods 
of  North  Carolina,  and  Maryland  and  Virginia,  to  form  the  Gen- 
eral Synod.*^"  At  the  first  convention  of  that  body,  held  the  suc- 
ceeding year,  the  New  York  Ministerium  failed  to  appear.  In  1823 
the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  withdrew,"'  and  as  a  consequence, 

5" The  classical  school  at  Harlwick  was  opened  December  15th,  1815.  Its 
charter  as  a  theological  seminary  is  dated  August  loth,  1S16.  Hartwick  Me- 
morial Volume,  pp.  37,  38. 

68  Hazelius,  155. 

*^Bernheim,  440;  Hazelius,  14S  ;   Luih.  Intelligencer,  passim. 

^"See  the  "  Proposed  Plan  for  a  General  Union  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,"  adopted  by  the  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania  at  Baltimore,  in  1S19.     Ev.  Revie-w,  12  :  590. 

61  The  withdrawal  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  was  not   because  of 


Il8  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  churches  west  of  the  Susquehanna  left  the  Ministerium  in  1825, 
and,  under  the  title  of  the  West  Pennsylvania  Synod,  remained  in 
the  General  Synod. "^  One  year  before  this,  the  South  Carolina 
Synod  was  organized.  At  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  pres- 
ent century,  our  church  had  grown  to  164  ministers,  475  congrega- 
tions, and  45,000  communicants.  Of  the  congregations  reported, 
no  less  than  100  were  without  pastors. ^'^«. 

Three  theological  seminaries  soon  came  into  existence,  and  con- 
tributed largely  to  our  further  development,  viz.,  m  1826,  that  of 
the  General  Synod  at  Gettysburg,  and  in  1830,  that  of  the  Ohio 
Synod  at  Columbus,  and  of  the  South  Carolina  Synod,  first  at  New- 
berry, then  at  Lexington,  then  again  at  Newberry,  and  now  trans- 
ferred to  the  General  Synod  of  North  America,  and  located  at 
Salem,  Va. 

The  influence  of  a  Lutheran  press  also  began  to  make  itself  felt. 
As  early  as  181 1,  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  started  a  synod- 
ical  organ — in  German — under  the  editorship  of  Dr.  Helmuth  and 
Rev.  Schmidt,  which  ran  its  course  in  about  three  years.  The  Lu- 
theran Intelligencer,  edited  by  Dr.  D.  F.  Schaeffer,  at  Frederick, 
Md,,  from  1826-31;  the  Lutheran  Magazine,  edited  by  Dr.  Lintner, 
and  published  for  three  years  at  Schoharie,  N.  Y. ;  the  Lutheran 
Obseiver,  founded  in  1831,  and  whose  first  editor  is  the  president 
of  this  Diet;  the  Lutheran  Preacher,  published  by  Dr.  Eichel- 
berger,  at  Winchester,  Va.,  in  1833-4;  the  Lutheran  Standard, 
founded  in  1842,  whose  first  editor,  Dr.  Greenwald,  we  had  hoped 
to  find  with  us  to-day ;  the  Missionary  of  Dr.  Passavant,  founded 
in  1848;    the  Evangelical  Lutheran,  the  Oliv  eB ranch,  the  Home 


dissatisfaction  with  the  new  organization,  but  because  of  the  unreasonable  fear 
prevalent  in  many  of  its  congregations  of  an  increase  of  ecclesiastical  power. 
See  the  comparatively  recent  reference  in  "  The  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
the  late  Convention  at  Ft.  Wayne,  Ind.,  1866,"  p.  12  ;  and  the  resolution  on  p. 
16,  Minutes  of  1823:  "  Resolved,  That  the  above  resolutions  shall  remain  in 
force,  until  such  time  in  the  future  as  the  congregations  themselves  shall  see 
their  mistake  of  our  true  intention,  and  shall  call  for  a  reconsideration  of  these 
resolutions." 

62  See  manuscript  record  of  the  preliminary  conference  between  Drs.  J.  G. 
and  S.  S.  Schmucker  and  Rev.  J.  Herbst,  in  Library  of  Historical  Society. 

62»  See  Address  to  the  congregations  of  the  West  Pennsylvania  Synod  by 
Revs.  Dr.  J.  G.  Schmucker,  J.  G.  Graeber  and  J.  Herbst,  25,  p.  2. 


DR.    JACOBS'    ESSAY.  I  I9 

Journal,  the  Ltttheran,  the  Lutheran  and  Missionary,  tlie  Lutheran 
Watchman,  the  Lutheran  Visitor,  Our  Church  Paper,  the  Church 
Messenger,  the  Evangelical  Review,  tlie  Quarterly  Review,  not  to 
mention  any  but  EngHsh  papers/''  or  even  to  make  their  list  exhaust- 
ive, all  have  performed  an  important  part  in  the  development  of  the 
interests  of  the  Church.  With  all  the  defects  that  have  marred 
many  of  their  issues,  the  Church  owes  to-day  a  great  debt  of  grati- 
tude to  its  press.  At  present,  every  tendency  within  the  Church 
that  would  assert  its  claims,  feels  the  need  of  an  organ,  and  for 
every  advance  the  Church  has  made,  the  press  has  heralded  the 
way.  The  utterances  of  our  Church  press  carry  more  weight  with 
them  than  even  the  resolutions  of  Synods,  which  are  easily  passed, 
and  unless  vigorously  supported  by  the  press,  as  a  rule  are  soon  for- 
gotten. 

We  cannot  enter  into  the  details  of  the  last  fifty  years.  There 
are  venerable  men  in  this  Diet,  who  have  been  prominently  identi- 
fied with  the  movements  of  our  Church  in  that  period,  to  whom  we 
must  look  for  a  full  record  of  the  struggles  through  which  we  have 
gathered  the  strength  of  to-day.  A  few  facts,  however,  must  be 
noticed.  Such  are  the  increase  in  strength  of  the  General  Synod, 
by  the   return,  under  certain  clearly  defined  conditions, ''*■'''  of  the 

**  The  principal  German  periodicals  have  been  Das  Evangelische  Alagazin  of 
Helmuth  and  Schmidt,  mentioned  above;  Das  Evangclischc  Magazin  of  Rev. 
Ilerbst  and  Drs.  S.  S.  Schmucker  and  E.  L.  Hazelius,  Gettysburg,  1829-33;  the 
Ilirteiistimnie  and  Kii'chenbote  of  Rev.  C.  Weyl,  Baltimore,  of  which  the  latter 
was  afterwards  edited  at  Gettysburg  and  Selinsgrove  by  Rev.  Anstadt;  the  Lu- 
i/ierisc/ie  Kirchenzeitung,  edited  by  Rev.  F.  Schmidt  at  Easton,  Pa.,  for  several 
years  after  1838;  Wie  yiigeii/i-cund;  ihQ  Ltitltcrische  Zeitschri/i,  and  Theo-Moft' 
atshefte  of  Pastor  S.  K.  Brobst ;  the  Lutherische  Herold,  published  in  New 
York  ;  the  Lutherische  Kirchenzeitung,  published  at  Columbus,  Ohio ;  the 
Lekre  und  IVehre,  Lutheraner,  Magazin  filr  Ev.  Luth.  Homilclik,  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod:  the  Kirchenblatt  and  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,  of  the  Iowa  Synod  ; 
the  liiforinatorium  and  VVachcnJe  Kirche,  of  the  two  sections  of  the  Buffalo 
Synod ;  the  Gemeiiidcblatt,  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod  ;  the  Kirchenblatt,  of  the 
Canada  Synod  ;  the  Kirchenfreumi,  of  the  General  Synod,  etc. 

We  enter  upon  1878  with  60  periodicals,  exclusive  of  Almanacs,  viz.,  27  Ger- 
man, 17  English,  4  Swedish,  12  Norwegian  and  Danish.  In  1854,  only  11  in 
all  languages  are  reported. 

63«Minutes  of  New  York  Ministerium  for  1836,  p.  19;  of  Min.  of  Pa., 
1853,  p.  18. 


I20  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Ministerium  of  New  York  in  1837,  and  of  Pennsylvania  in  1S53, 
and  the  admission  of  numerous  other  Synods,  a  few  of  which  were 
very  small  and  soon  became  extinct,  or  were  merged  into  others. 
These  Synods  were  the  Hartwick,  admitted  in  1831,  the  South  Car- 
olina in  1835,  t'""^  Virginia  in  1839,  ^^'^^  Synod  of  the  West  in  1841, 
the  English,  of  Ohio,*''  the  Alleghany,  the  Southwest  Virginia,  and 
East  Pennsylvania  in  1843,  the  Miami  in  1845,  the  Illinois,  South- 
west and  Wittenberg  in  1848,  the  Olive  Branch  in  1850,  the  Pitts- 
burgh, Texas  and  North  Illinois  in  1853,  the  Kentucky,  English 
District  of  Ohio  and  Central  Pennsylvania  in  1855,  the  North  Indi- 
ana, South  Illinois  and  English  Iowa  in  1857,  Melanchthon  in  1859, 
New  Jersey  in  1862,  Minnesota  and  Franckean  in  1864,  Susquehanna, 
New  York,  Central  Illinois  and  (second)  Pittsburgh®'  in  1868,  Kan- 
sas in  1869,  Nebraska,  Ansgari  and  German  Maryland  in  1875, 
Wartburg  and  Augsburg  in  1877.  The  civil  war  caused  a  division 
in  the  General  Synod,  resulting  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  Synods  of 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Virginia  and  Southwest  Virginia. 
A  second  division  was  occasioned  by  the  admission  of  the  Franckean 

6* The  student  of  the  history  of  our  Synods  is  liable  to  be  confused  among 
the  English  Synods  of  Ohio.  The  original  English  Synod  of  Ohio  was  a  dis- 
trict of  the  Joint  Synod.  In  1840  it  split,  one  division  remaining  in  the  Joint 
Synod,  and  the  other  leaving  it,  and  both  claiming  the  name  of  English  Synod 
of  Ohio.  In  1857,  the  body  which  left  the  Joint  Synod,  and  united  with  the 
General  Synod,  changed  its  name  to  Eastern  Synod  of  Ohio.  The  other  body 
in  time  left  the  Joint  Synod,  and  following  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania, 
united  with  the  General  Synod  in  1855,  left  it  in  1866,  aided  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  General  Council,  and  was  finally  merged,  in  1872,  into  the  English 
District  Synod  of  Ohio  (No.  2)  and  Pittsburgh  Synod.  The  English  District 
Synod  of  Ohio  (No.  2)  was  formed  after  the  separation  of  its  predecessor  from 
Joint  Synod,  participated  in  the  organization  of  the  General  Council,  and  in 
turn  also  left  the  Joint  Synod.  The  English  District  Synod  of  Ohio  (No.  3) 
was  formed  after  the  separation  of  No.  2  from  the  Joint  Synod,  and  still  main- 
tains its  connection,  as  one  of  the  district  Synods  of  that  body. 

6aAt  its  Twenty-fourth  Convention  at  Rochester,  Pa.,  in  1866,  the  Pittslnirgh 
Synod,  by  a  vote  of  50  to  23,  left  the  General  Synod,  and  at  the  next  meeting 
by  a  vote  of  63  to  21,  adopted  the  "Fundamental  Principles  of  Faith  and 
Church  Polity"  of  the  General  Council.  The  most  of  the  minority,  viz.,  ten 
ministers  and  seven  laymen,  withdrew,  claiming  the  name  and  corporate 
rights  of  the  entire  body,  on  the  ground  of  an  alleged  violation  of  the  consti- 
tution by  the  majority.  The  action  of  the  General  Synod  in  1868  approved 
this  claim,  by  recognizing  the  minority  as  though  no  resolution  of  withdrawal 
had  ever  been  passed. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY,  121 

Synod  in  1864,  which  led  the  delegates  of  the  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania  to  withdraw,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Franckean 
Synod  had  not  as  yet  received  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  its  con- 
fession of  faith/'*  Two  years  afterwards,  the  exclusion  of  the  del- 
egates of  the  same  Synod  from  the  organization  of  the  meeting  at 
Ft.  Wayne,  resulted  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  Ministerium  of  New 
York,  and  ^the  Synods  of  Pittsburgh,  English  Ohio,  Minnesota  and 
Texas,  and  the  disbanding  of  the  old  Synod  of  Illinois.  In  the  fall 
of  i860,  when  the  General  Synod  had  reached  its  greatest  numerical 
strength,  it  numbered  864  out  of  13 13  ministers,  and  164,000  out 
of  245,000  communicants,  /.  <?. ,  two-thirds  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  this  country.  In  the  fall  of  1868,  it  had  left  572  out  of  1792 
ministers,  and  86,000  out  of  350,000  communicants,  or  one-fourth 
of  the  entire  Church.  Its  comparative  strength  according  to  the 
latest  statistics  in  the  almanac,  published  for  its  churches,  is  812  out 
of  2905  ministers,  and  116,000  out  of  605,000  communicants. 


**The  resolution  of  admission  was:  "  Resolved,  That  the  Franckean  Synod 
is  received  into  connection  with  lliis  Synod,  with  the  understanding  tliat  said 
Synod,  at  its  next  meeting,  declare,  in  on  official  manner,  its  adoption  of  the 
doctrinal  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  a  substantially  correct  exhibi- 
tion of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God."  Minutes  of  General 
Synod,  1864.  p.  18.  The  report  of  the  President  of  the  Franckean  Synod  in 
1865,  makes  the  following  explanation:  "For  a  quarter  of  a  century,  we 
maintained  a  separate  existence,  but  at  last  concluded  to  form  a  connection  with 
it  (the  General  Synod),  as  it  might  serve  a  good  purpose  to  unite  all  the  district 
synods  in  grand  council,  and  as  there  was  nothing  in  the  constitution  to  burden 
our  consciences.  Our  admission,  however,  was  opposed  by  a  party,  mainly  on 
the  ground  that  we  had  not  formally  adopted  the  "Augsburg  Confession  ;"  and, 
as  a  compromise,  we  were  required  to  adopt  its  doctrinal  articles  as  a  substan- 
tially correct  exhibition  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Word  of  God. 
Thus  qualified  we  could  consistently  adopt  it.  Now,  however,  we  are  asked  to 
do  much  more ;  viz.,  to  amend  the  constitution  by  inserting  in  it  an  unqualified 
recognition  or  endorsement  of  the  entire  Augsburg  Confession,  and  bind  it  as 
a  creed  upon  our  Synods,  and  our  consciences.  Are  we,  my  brethren,  pre- 
pared to  do  this,  to  do  violence  to  our  honest  convictions,  and  become  the  re- 
proach of  Protestant  Christianity?  I  hope  not!"  Minutes  for  1865,  p.  8. 
The  revised  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod,  received,  accordingly,  only 
one  vote,  p.  39. 

In  justice  to  many  who  voted  for  the  admission  of  the  Franckean  Synod,  it 
should  yet  be  added,  that  they  regarded  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  the 
General  Synod,  by  that  body,  a  virtual  adoption  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
Minutes  of  General  Synod  for  1864,  p.  42. 
9 


122  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

The  General  Synod  of  North  America,  organized  during  the  war 
in  the  Southern  States,  has  embraced  the  Synods  of  North  Carohna, 
South  Carohna,  Virginia,  Southwest  Virginia,  Georgia,  Mississippi 
and  Holston.  The  Synod  of  North  Carohna  withdrew  in  1871, 
and  the  Holston  Synod  in  1872.  At  the  period  of  its  greatest 
strength,  it  numbered  121  ministers,  and  16,000  communicants; 
and  is  now  reduced  to  98  ministers,  and  13,000  communicants. 

The  General  Council  was  organized  by  a  convention  at  Reading, 
Pa,  in  1866.  At  its  first  meeting  at  Fort  Wayne  in  1867, 
the  Ministeriums  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  the  English 
Synod  of  Ohio,  the  Pittsburgh,  the  Wisconsin,  the  English  District 
of  Ohio,  the  Michigan,  the  Augustana,  the  Minnesota,  the  Canada 
and  the  Illinois  Synods,  united  as  full  members  ;  while  the  German 
Iowa  and  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  accepted  the  invitation  to  be  rep- 
resented by  delegates,  with  the  right  of  debate,  but  not  of  vote.  At 
the  succeeding  meeting  in  Pittsburgh,  the  Synod  of  Texas  was  re- 
ceived; at  Chicago  in  1869,  the  withdrawal  of  the  Synod  of  Wis- 
consin was  announced ;  at  Rochester,  in  187 1,  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Synods  of  Minnesota  and  Illinois,  was  aFso  announced;  in  1872,  the 
Indiana  Synod  was  admitted,  and  in  1874,  the  Holston  Synod  of 
Tennessee.  The  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  ceased  all  connection  with 
the  Council  after  the  first  meeting.  The  German  Synod  of  Iowa 
has  been  represented  in  every  convention  except  one,  while  the 
Norwegian-Danish  Augustana,  since  1871,  has  maintained  the  same 
relation  to  the  General  Council  as  the  Iowa  Synod.  At  its  first 
meeting,  exclusive  of  synods  in  an  anomalous  relation,  it  numbered 
515  ministers  and  136,000  communicants.  The  last  official  report,*' 
rejecting  also  the  anomalous  synods,  gives  593  ministers  and  175,000 
communicants;  or,  adding  these  two  Synods,  743  ministers  and 
197,000  communicants. 

The  Synodical  Conference  was  organized  in  1872,  and  includes 
at  present  the  Synods  of  Missouri,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  Illinois,  and 
Minnesota,  the  Norwegian  Synod,  and  the  English  Conference  of 
Missouri,  numbering  altogether  1076  ministers,  and  about  as  many 
communicants  as  m  the  General  Synod  and  General  Council  com- 
bined, and  nearly  twice  as  many  as  in  the  General  Synod  in  the  time 
of  its  greatest  numerical  strength.     The  synods  unconnected  with 

6'  Minutes  of  the  General  Council,  1877. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY,  1 23 

general    organizations   scarcely  amount   in   communicants  to  one- 
twelfth  of  our  entire  number. 

Between  1825  and  '35,  our  strength  was  more  than  doubled;  l)e- 
tween  1835  and  '53,  it  was  again  doubled;  between  1853  and  '68, 
it  was  doubled  the  third  time ;  and,  from  present  indications,  before 
1880  it  will  have  been  doubled  for  the  fourth  time.  According  to 
this,  we  are  doubling  our  strength  on  an  average  every  fourteen 
years,  the  ratio  of  increase  in  number  of  ministers  not  equaling, 
however,  the  increase  of  membership.*® 

fi^The  following  data,  gleaned  from  various  trustworthy  sources,  give  a  gen- 
eral idea  of  our  strength  by  Synods,  previous  to  the  publication  of  our  Alma- 
nacs : 

1825  Alin.       Cong.         Com. 

Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 58         212         26,882 

"  "   New  York 23  40  2,258 

Synod  of  North  Carolina 7  27  1,147 

"       "     Ohio 24  96  6,676 

"       "     Maryland  and  Virginia 30  48  5jI37 

"       "     South  Carolina lO  19  1,025 

"       "     Tennessee 11  }  ? 

163  442  43.125 
1834 

Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania 60  191  22,403 

"             "    New  York 24  37  2,404 

Synod  of  North  Carolina.. 12  24  1,621 

"        "     Ohio,  Eastern  District •. 21  60  S,l68 

"       "         "      Western     "        27  83  4,019 

"       "     Maryland 17  48  4,756 

"       "     Tennessee 13  38  ? 

'■       "     South  Carolina 11  27  1.752 

"       "     West  Pennsylvania 34  132  9,872 

"       '•'     Virginia 8  24  1. 976 

Hart  wick  Synod 16  37  4,000 

243         703         60,971 
In  1833,  the  Lutheran  Preacher  (p.  80)  estimated  the   Lutheran  population 
in  the  United  States  as  750,000;  while  the  N.  Y.  Ministerium  (Minutes   for 
1833,  p.  25)  claimed  a  population  in  that  State  of  50,cioo. 

An  estimate  by  decades  in  Ev.  Review,  7,298,  supplemented  by  the  statistics 
for  1863  and  '73,  gives: 

JSlin.        Cong.  Com. 

'823 175  900  38,0^6 

'^33 337        1,017  59.35S 

^\^^ 430        1.371  147-000 

'°53 900        1,750         200,000 

*^^3 1,431        2,677         2S5.217 

^073 2,309       4,1 15        4S5,oS-- 


124  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

The  increase  in  the  first  period  of  ten  years,  finds  its  explanation 
in  the  better  organization  of  the  churches,  the  increased  supply  of 
ministers,  the  establishment  of  literary  centres,  the  increasing  power 
of  the  press,  and  the  growing  activity,  both  in  the  General  Synod 
and  out  of  it,  in  home  missionary  work.  But  before  many  years, 
unless  a  new  factor  enter  into  the  account,  the  ratio  of  this  increase 
would  necessarily  be  greatly  diminished  by  the  exhaustion  of  the 
fields  for  new  work,  and  the  limitation  of  the  growth  of  the  churches 
to  the  natural  growth  of  their  population.  This  new  element  we 
find  in  what  we  may  regard  the  fourth  basis  for  Lutheran  Church 
development  in  America.  The  Dutch  on  the  Hudson  form  the  first, 
the  Swedes  on  the  Delaware  the  second,  the  Germans  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  the  third,  and  the  Germans  and  the  Scandinavians  of 
the  nineteenth  century  the  fourth  basis.  Nine-tenths  of  the  two 
General  Synods,  less  than  one  half  of  the  General  Council,  and 
about  one-fourth  of  the  members  of  Synods  not  included  in  any 
general  organization,  are  the  descendants  of  emigrants  of  the  last 
century ;  while  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  Synodical  Conference, 
three-fourths  of  the  independent  Synods,  one-tenth  of  the  General 
Synod,  and  more  than  one-half  the  General  Council,  are  either  for- 
eign-born or  the  descendants  of  those  who  have  come  hither  since 
1825.  How  vast  the  work  that  has  been  thus  thrown  upon  our 
Church  in  America,  and  how  small  a  fraction  of  the  whole,  we  who 
represent  the  anglicized  portion  of  the  Church,  are  becoming,  may 
be  learned,  when  we  find  that  the  official  reports  of  emigration 
enumerate,  between  1820  and  1837,  over  231,000  Swedish  and  Nor- 
wegian, and  34,000  Danish  immigrants,  all  of  whom,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  are  Lutheran,  and  2,764,000  German  immigrants, 
among  whom  we  are  largely  represented ;  and  that  in  the  year  1873 

We  make  no  attempt  to  reconcile  the  discrepancies  between  tiie  laijles.  It  is 
gratifying,  however,  to  notice  how  closely  the  number  of  congregations  reported 
by  the  census  for  1870  accords  with  the  almanacs. 

The  two  almanacs  for  1878,  that  have  attempted  to  compute  the  strength  of 
the  entire  Clmrch,  report  as  follows  : 

Rlin.  Cong.  Com. 

Lutherische  Kalender  (Brobst's) 2,914  5. 136         655,529 

Lutheran  Almanac   (Kurtz) 2,905  5,004         605,340 

The  higher  figures  are  the  more  trustworthy  ;  yet  both  almanacs  in  their  esti- 
mates are  manifestly  too  low,  as  the  synodical  parochial  reports  for  1S77  show 
many  omissions. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  1 25 

alone  there  were  34,000  Scandinavians  and  133,000  Germans 
landed  on"'  our  shores.  Hence,  is  it  wonderful  that  our  increase 
per  annum  equals  now  the  entire  strength  of  our  Church  in  this 
country  fifty  years  ago  ?  With  a  proportionate  increase  of  a  ministry 
fitted  for  pioneer  work  among  those  vast  masses — hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  whom  are  our  brethren  in  the  faith — with  the  harmonious 
co-operation  of  the  entire  Church,  and  suitable  provision  to  control 
the  inevitable  anglicizing  of  the  foreign  Lutheran  population,  so  that 
their  loss  may  be  only  one  of  language  and  nationality,  but  not  of 
fiiith,  ought  not  the  rate  of  our  Church's  increase  to  be  still  greater? 
Are  we  not  perhaps  losing  annually  a  number  equal  to  the  aggregate 
of  the  losses  for  the  first  two  centuries  that  we  so  much  deplore  ? 

As  fair  an  estimate  as  we  can  make  from  our  personal  knowledge 
of  the  field,  upon  the  basis  of  the  statistics  gathered  last  year,'" 
gives  117,000  Scandinavians,  ministered  to  by  349  pastors;  312,000 
foreign  Germans,  ministered  to  by  1315  pastors,  and  about  210,000 
Americans  and  Pennsylvania  Germans,  minis  ered  to  by  1042  pas- 
tors. Surely  we  can  no  longer  be  reckoned,  as  we  were  twenty-five 
years  ago  by  Dr.  Baird,  in  his  "Religion  in  America,"  among  the 
smaller  Presbyterian  bodies.'^ 

This  development  upon  the  fourth  basis  has  thus  far  been  largely 
influenced  by  the  Synod  of  Missouri.  This  Synod  had  its  origin  in 
a  colony  of  Saxon  Lutherans,  who,  with  their  six  pastors  emigrated 
to  Perry  Co.,  Mo.,  in  1S39,  ^'^  '^'"'^  result,  we  are  told  in  a  narrative 
of  a  Missouri  pastor,  of  a  correspondence  that  their  leader  had  in 
1830,  with  Dr.  Benjamin  Kurtz,  of  Baltimore."  Thus  the  mission 
of  Dr.  Kurtz  to  Germany,  to  procure  funds  for  the  Gettysburg  The- 
ological Seminary,  became  indirectly  the  means  of  introducing  into 
this  country  a  powerful  movement  in  favor  of  the  strictest  confes- 
sional Lutheranism.  Scarcely  had  they  reached  this  country,  when 
they  found  their  leader  a  deceiver.  Thrown  upon  their  own  re- 
sources, the  six  pastors  with  great  faith  at  once  applied  themselves, 

*9  Annual  American  Cyclopaedia  for   1873.     Another  fact  bearing  upon  the 

future  development  of  our  Church,  is  that  the  last  census  showed  that  nearly  all 
the  Scandinavians  had  settled  west  of  Lake  Michigan,  and  two-thirds  of  the 
Germans  west  of  Buffalo,  New  Yorlc. 

'"Church  Almanac  for  1S77. 

71  Baird's  "  Religion  in  Ameiica,"  p.  516. 

'^Kostering's  Auswanderung  der  siichsischen  Lutheraner,  p.  10. 


126  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

not  only  to  the  care  of  their  people,  but  also  to  the  work  of  educat- 
ing candidates  for  the  ministry  to  labor  among  the  scattered  Ger- 
mans. Soon  they  were  joined  by  others,  especially  by  a  number 
of  ministers  who  had  left  the  Synod  of  Ohio,  on  account  of  its 
alleged  doctrinal  laxity,  and  in  1847  the  combined  body  held  their 
first  synodical  meeting  with  twenty-seven  pastors.  Much  aid  was 
derived  for  some  years  from  the  distinguished  Lohe,  of  Neuendett- 
elsau,  in  Bavaria.  Now  they  number  over  six  hundred  pastors,  and 
support  two  theological  seminaries,  with  over  a  hundred  students, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  other  Synods,  in  which  their  influence  amounts 
almost  to  a  practical  control.  We  should  notice  also  in  passing,  as 
bodies  of  especial  importance  belonging  to  this  fourth  basis  of  de- 
velopment, the  large  Norwegian  Synod,  founded  in  the  Northwest 
in  1859,  ^^il^h  its  142  pastors  and  flourishing  college  at  Decorah, 
Iowa ;  and  the  Swedish  Augustana  Synod,  nearly  as  old  and  almost 
on  the  same  territory,  with  its  120  pastors  and  flourishing  institu- 
tions at  Rock  Island,  111.,  in  which,  provident  of  the  future,  it  sup- 
ports two  English  professors. 

Such  are  some  of  the  general  features  of  the  external  history  and 
progress  of  our  Church  in  the  United  States.  Neither  should  its 
inner  history  be  over-looked. 

I.  Doctrinal  Position.  The  Dutch  Lutherans  of  New  York  in 
various  documents,  pledge  themselves,  sometimes  to  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,'^  and  sometimes  to  the  Symbolical  Books  of 
our  Lutheran  Church."  The  instructions  to  the  Governor  of  New 
Sweden  in  1642,  charged  him  to  see  to  it,  "that  divine  service  be 
zealously  performed  according  to  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion,'^ The  Halle  Records  repeatedly  indicate  that  the  foundation 
of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  was  laid  upon  the  Word  of 
God,  as  confessed  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  other  Sym- 
bolical Books."''  But  near  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  no 
other  confession  but  the  Augustana  was  made  binding,  and  at  last 
even  this  requirement  was  sometimes  omitted,  as  we  find  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  New  York  Ministerium  of  181 6  ;"  where  it  is  laid 
down  as  a  fundamental  rule  of  the  Synod,  "  that  the  person  or- 
dained shall  not  be  required  to  make  any  other  engagement  than, 
this,  that  he  will  faithfully  teach,  as  well  as  perform  all  other  minis- 

"£■7/.  Review,  6:  313.         "^^ Ev.  Review,  13:  366         '^Acielius,  39. 
"^^Ev.  Review,  3:  420;  5  :  208.     Hall.  Nach.,  285;    1287.  "P.  20, 


DR.    JACOnS     ESSAY.  12/ 

terial  duties,  and  regulate  his  walk  and  conversation,  according  to 
the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  as  contained  in 
Holy  Scripture."  Dr.  S.  S.  Schrnucker  pertinently  asks  on  the 
margin  of  the  copy  of  this  constitution,  now  in  the  Historical  Lib- 
rary at  Gettysburg:  But  "what  is  '  faithfully  teaching'  the  Gos- 
pel of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ?"  It  is  generally  acknowledged 
that  especially  in  the  New  York  Ministerium  of  that  period  very 
serious  errors  were  prevalent.  As  an  example  of  manifest  in- 
difference to  the  interests  of  our  Church,  we  need  only  refer 
to  the  resolution  by  that  body  in  1797:  "That  on  account  of 
an  intimate  relation  subsisting  between  the  English  Episcopalian 
and  Lutheran  churches,  the  identity  of  their  doctrine  and  the  near 
approach  of  their  church  discipline,  this  consistory  will  never  ac- 
knowledge a  newly  erected  Lutheran  Church,  in  places  where  the 
members  may  partake  of  the  services  of  the  said  English  Episcopal 
Church.""  Three  years  before,  the  ministers  of  our  Church  in 
North  Carolina  had  ordained  Rev.  R.  J.  Miller,  as  "an  Episcopal 
minister,"  and  charged  him  in  his  ordination  certificate  "to  obey  the 
rules,  ordinances  and  customs  of  the  Christian  society,  called  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  America,""  and  then,  with  this 
understanding,  permitted  him  to  labor  in  Lutheran  congregations  for 
twenty-seven  years.  In  1S21,  the  North  Carolina  Synod  entered  into 
an  agreement  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  same  StatQ., 
whereby  each  body  sent  deputations  to  the  conventions  of  the  other, 
with  the  privilege  not  only  of  a  voice,  but  also  of  a  vote.***  The 
reaction  was  natural,  by  which  the  members  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod  a  few  years  later  not  only  placed  themselves  upon  a  decidedly 
confessional  basis,  but  went  so  far  as  to  incorporate  a  provision  in 

"^^  Ev.  Review,  7:  533;   II :    183.     Yet  in  the  minutes  for  1824,  we  find  lay- 
reading  commended  as  a  means  of  keeping  togetlier  Lutherans,  where  they  were 
without  a  pastor,  and  of  "  resisting  the  encroachments  of  other  churches,"  p.  31. 
■^  Bernheim,  339. 

*•  Bernheim  450,  jr/.  During  thi^  period  the  Episcopal  Church  was  often 
popularly  called  the  "  English  Lutheran."  See  Eine  Znschrifl  von  der  Cor- 
poration Deittschen  Ltitherischcn  Gemcinein  Philadelphia^^  Germantown,  1805  , 
p.  9  :  "  The  expression  German  Evangelical  Lutheran  Doctrine  is  unusual  to 
us  ;  and  if  any  one  should  have  used  it,  it  perhaps  was  done  in  antithesis  to 
the  English  Episcopal  doctrine,  which  is  called  by  many  from  ignorance  Lu- 
theran, and  English  Lutheran." 


128  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

their  constitution  that :  "  No  subject  whatever,  which  may  be  com- 
prehended under  these  Articles,  shall  be  decided  either  according  to 
a  majority  or  a  minority  of  votes ;  but  only  according  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  faith  ;"8i  and  to  send 
for  consecutive  years  to  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  formida- 
ble documents,  challenging  its  Lutheranism,  which  the  latter  passed 
by  in  silence.®^  The  great  question  that  agitated  our  Church  in 
this  country  for  many  years  of  the  present  century,  was  in  sub- 
stance :  "Shall  we  retain  our  historical  connection  with  the  Lutheran 
Church  of  our  fathers,  or  shall  we  surrender  the  distinctive  doc- 
trines for  which  they  contended,  and  as  a  religious  society  become 
simply  a  member  of  the  Reformed  family  of  Churches  by  which  we 
are  surrounded?"  This  was  the  question  that  lay  beneath  nearly  all 
our  controversies.  We  were  in  danger  of  being  carried  away  by 
the  strongest  currents  prevalent  for  the  time  in  the  denominations 
around  us.  The  doctrinal  controversies  concerning  Original  Sin 
and  the  Holy  Sacraments,  and  the  practical  controversies  concern- 
ing the  necessity  and  obligation  of  confessions  of  faith,  concerning  a 
recension  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  concerning  Old  and  New 


81  Minutes,  1827  ;  p.  23. 

82  The  questions  addressed  to  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  in  1S23  were  : 

1.  Do  you  believe  that  Holy  Baptism,  as  it  is  administered  with  natural 
water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  worketh  forgiveness  of 
sins,  delivers  from  death  and  the  devil,  and  gives  everlasting  salvation  ? 

2.  Do  you  believe  that  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  present  in  the 
Holy  Supper,  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  and  is  there  communicated 
and  received  ?  Do  you  believe  also  that  the  unbelieving  guests  of  this  meal 
eat  and  drink  also  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  under  the  form  of  bread  and 
wine?  We  ask  not  whether  the  unbelieving  thereby  receive  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  but  whether  in  this  sacrament  they  receive  also  the  body  and  blood  of 
Jesus  ? 

3.  Do  you  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  should  be  worshiped  as  true  God  and 
man  in  one  person  ? 

4.  Is  it  right  that  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  should  seek  to  unite  in 
any  religious  form  of  government  with  those  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  Luther's  Citechism  ?  or  is  it  right  that  Lutherans 
should  go  with  such  to  the  Holy  Supper? 

5.  Is  your  Synod  hereafter  to  be  governed  by  a  majority  of  votes? 

6.  Do  you  still  intend  to  present  the  excuse  that  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  Supreme 
Head  of  His  Church,  has  prescribed  no  specific  directoi^  for  its  government 
and  discipline,"  as  is  said  in  the  constitution  of  the  General  Synod  ?  Min.,p.  13. 


DR.   JACOBS     ESSAY,  1 29 

Measures,  concerning  orders  of  service  in  divine  worship,  can  be 
traced  to  external  influences;  and  our  Church  was  in  danger  of 
perishing  on  this  continent  from  a  lack  of  self-assertion,  and  a  for- 
getfulness  of  her  mission  from  the  very  beginning  as  a  teacher  to  all 
nations  and  all  Churches,  of  the  very  purest  form  of  the  Gospel. 
There  were,  of  course,  other  elements  that  entered  into  these  move- 
ments. The  intense  subjectivism  of  Pietism  prepared  the  way  here 
as  in  Europe  for  dangers  from  Rationalism.  The  desolation  wrought 
in  the  mother  country  only  touched  our  shores  with  its  remotest 
and  feeblest  waves  ;  yet  these  were  sufficient  to  cause  an  undervalu- 
ing by  otherwise  excellent  men,  of  those  strongholds  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  our  Church.  Then,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  partisan  zeal,  bitter  spirit, 
and  imprudent  counsels  of  some  who  in  the  period  of  greatest  indif- 
ference protested  against  the  prevailing  laxity,  were  adapted  to  repel 
rather  than  attract  earnest  men.  Our  ministers  (and  we  would  give 
due  honor  to  those  venerable  men,  so  abundant  in  labors  and  sacri- 
fices,) were  so  overwhelmed  in  their  work,  that  they  had  little  time  for 
special  studies.  The  cotemporary  literature  that  came  from  Ger- 
many, was  infected  with  the  poison  abounding  there.  With  the 
anglicizing  of  the  people,  the  congregations  were  left  without  a 
Lutheran  literature.  Earnest  and  devout  members  of  our  congrega- 
tions were  naturally  led  to  procure  and  read  the  devotional  and 
practical  works  of  other  Churches,  to  the  neglect  of  the  rich  ascetic 
literature  in  which  our  Church  abounds.  John  Arndt,  Scriver, 
Gerhard,  Heinrich  Mueller,  Herberger,  were  replaced  by  Baxter, 
Doddridge,  Bunyan,  Wesley,  Edwards.  Many  candidates  for  the 
ministry  were  instructed  in  the  schools  of  other  Churches,  and,  even 
though  on  their  guard,  unconsciously  drew  in  the  spirit  of  these 
Churches,  acquiring  with  much  that  was  truly  precious,  much  also 
that  obscured  the  strength  and  simplicity  of  the  Evangelical  faith. 
The  English  churches  had  the  start  of  our  Lutheran  peasantry  in 
education  and  general  intelligence,  and,  by  a  higher  social  position, 
presented  attractions  for  those  not  well  grounded  in  the  foith ;  while 
intermarriage  also  contributed  its  element  to  the  confusion ;  some- 
times to  our  gain,  more  frequently  to  our  loss.  Non-Lutheran  Sun- 
day-schools, and  the  repetition  in  Lutheran  schools  by  unwary 
teachers  of  what  they  had  drawn  from  authorities  prejudiced  against 
our  Church  and  its  doctrines,  also  had  their  influence  against  us. 


130  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

The  only  wonder  is  that  tlie  result  was  not  worse ;  and  that  there 
was  anything  of  Lutheranism  left  among  us.  Yet  the  devotional 
works  of  our  Church  were  still  read  in  many  a  quiet  corner;  the 
German  hymns  were  not  altogether  forgotten,  and,  even  when  no 
longer  heard  in  public  service,  brought  comfort  and  joy  to  many  an 
aged  servant  of  Christ;  Luther's  Catechism  was  still  taught  in  the 
Church,  and  even  when  neglected  in  the  Sunday-school,  or  sup- 
planted**-''  by  imagined  improvements,  was  handed  down  for  gen- 
erations from  the  memory  of  pious  parents,  and  more  than  anything 
else  except  the  Holy  Word  itself  preserved  and  nourished  our  vital- 
ity during  that  season  of  trial.  Many  a  devout  but  uneducated  lay- 
man, many  a  plain  but  thoughtful  mother,  was  thus  shaping  in  the 
family  the  future  theological  course  of  a  new  generation  in  the 
ministry. 

The  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United.  States  has  certainly  made 
great  progress  within  the  last  twenty-five  years  in  fuller  acquaint- 
ance, higher  appreciation  and  heartier  acceptance  of  the  theology 
of  the  Reformation — a  progress  manifested  not  simply  in  the  doc- 
trinal tests  of  our  general  organizations,®^  our  synods,  our  seminaries, 

82a  Resolution  of  N.  C.  Synod  in  1825  :  "As  the  complaint  is  universal,  that  so 
many  different  English  catechisms  are  circulating  under  the  name  of  Lutheran, 
and  which  are  partly  abridged  or  not  well  translated,  it  was  unanimously 
Resolved,  That  none  of  our  ministers  can  receive  any  catechism,  thereby  to  in- 
struct children,  which  in  the  articles  of  faith  or  doctrinals  departs  from  Dr. 
Luther's  Small  Catechism ;  because  we  are  bound  by  the  constitution  of  the 
General  Synod  of  our  Church,  to  make  no  change  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church."     Minutes,  p.  11. 

''  In  consequence  of  the  long  delay  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  last 
session  of  the  General  Synod,  to  have  an  exact  translation  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther's 
Catechism  printed,"  etc.     Minutes  of  N.  C.  Synod  for  1826,  p.  6. 

See  some  excellent  remarks  by  Dr.  Hazelius  on  the  spiritual  desolation 
resulting  from  neglect  of  catechisation,  in  Minutes  of  N.  Y.  Ministerium,  1830, 
p.  26. 

83  CONFESSIONAL   BASES     OF     THE    PRINCIPAL    LUTHERAN   BODIES    IN     AMERICA. 

I.  The  General  Synod. 
"  We  receive  and  hold,  with  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  our  fathers, 
the  Word  of  God,  as  contained  in  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  as  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Divine 
Word,  and  of  the  faith  our  Church  founded  upon  that  Word." 

IL    The  General  Synod  in  North  America  {South). 
"  We  receive  and  hold  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  Word  of 


DR.    JACOBS'    ESSAY,  I3I 

but  in  the  change  that  can  be  readily  discerned  in  the  entire  habit 
of  many  of  the  Churches  which  we  have  classified  as  belonging  to  the 
third  basis  of  Lutheran  development  in  America.  A  leaven  is  work- 
ing, slowly  it  may  be,  yet  none  the  less  surely,  which  encourages  the 
hope  that  in  the  not  very  remote  future  we  may  be  able  to  apply 
ourselves  with  greater  harmony  to  the  great  work  before  us  in  this 
country.  Our  greatest  danger  lies  in  our  impatience,  that  the  pro- 
cesses in  operation  do  not  advance  with  sufficient  rapidity.  Where, 
however,  is  the  openly  proclaimed  Rationalism  and  Socinianism  of 
the  first  part  of  this  century?     Where  is  the  body  claiming  to  be 

God,  and  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  We  likewise  hold  that 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  contain 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  and  we  receive  and  adopt 
them  as  the  exponents  of  our  failh." 

III.  The  General  Council. 
''  We  accept  and  acknowledge  the  doctrines  of  ihe  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession in  its  original  sense,  as  throughout  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of 
which  God's  Word  is  the  only  rule.  We  accept  its  statements  of  truth,  as  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  canonical  Scriptures.  We  reject  the  errors  it  con- 
demns, and  we  believe  that  all  which  it  commits  to  the  liberty  of  the  Church, 
of  right  belongs  to  that  liberty." 

"In  thus  formally  accepting  and  acknowledging  the  Unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession,  we  declare  our  conviction  that  the  other  Confessions  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church,  inasmuch  as  they  set  forth  none  other  than  its  system 
of  doctrine,  and  articles  of  faith,  are  of  necessity  pure  and  Scriptural.  Pre- 
eminent among  such  accordant,  pure  and  Scriptural  statements  of  doctrine,  by 
their  intrinsic  excellence,  by  the  great  and  necessary  ends  for  which  they  were 
prepared,  by  their  historical  position,  and  the  general  judgment  of  the  Church, 
are  these  :  the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  the 
Catechisms  of  Luther,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  all  of  which  are  wiih  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  perfect  harmony  of  one  and  the  same 
Scriptural  faith." 

IV.     T/ie  Sy?iodiial  Conference. 
"  The  Synodical  Conference  acknowledges  ttie  canonical  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  as  God's  Word,  and  the  Confession  of  the  Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran  Church  of  15S0  called  '  the  Concordia,'  as  its  own." 

V.    The  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  Synods. 

"We  believe  that  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is,  in  all  its  parts,  in 
harmony  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  doctrine.  ' 

"  We  believe  that  the  Apology,  the  Catechisms  of  Luther,  the  Smalcald  \\- 
ticles,  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  are  a  faithful  development  and  deknce  of 
the  Word  of  God,  as  set  forth  in  the  Augsburg  Confession." 


132  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Lutheran  that  any  longer  ventures  to  reject  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, or  even  to  adopt  a  mutilated  recension  of  the  same?  What, 
too,  has  been  the  fate  of  bcoks  which  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago 
were  considered  standard  among  English-speaking  Lutherans,  that 
avowedly  rejected,  and  attempted  to  refute  parts  of  our  Confession? 
And  where  does  the  strength  of  Synods,  whose  acceptance  of  the 
Lutheran  faith  is  said  to  be  least  decided,  lie?  What  congregations 
manifest  the  steadiest  growth  and  the  greatest  permanent  activity 
but  those  among  them  administered  most  in  the  spirit  of  our  Confes- 
sion ?  A  few  hours'  study  of  the  parochial  reports  will  furnish  the 
answer.  It  is  true  that  success,  measured  by  earthly  standards,  will 
never  be  the  lot  of  a  pure  Church;  yet  manifest  tokens  of  the  divine 
presence  with  us  should  not  be  overlooked. 

2.  Church  Government.  The  foundation  for  the  general  form  of 
the  constitutions  of  congregations,  that  has  been  in  use  in  most  of 
the  churches  of  the  General  Council  and  the  two  General  Synods, 
was  laid  by  the  fathers  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
constitution  of  the  German  church  in  Philadelphia®*  provided  for  a 
church  council,  elected  by  the  congregations,  consisting  of  trustees, 
elders  and  deacons.  Under  this  provision,  Muhlenberg  and  Hand- 
schuh  were  both  elected  trustees,  and  thus  made  members  of  the 
church  council.  The  constitution  prepared  by  Muhlenberg,  in  1 757, 
for  the  Church  in  Georgia,  differs  in  this  particular,  as  it  prescribes 
that  the  church  council  shall  consist  of  "the  oldest  minister  as 
president,  and  the  regular  elected  deacons."*^'' 

3.  Worship.  Owing  to  the  wide  extent  of  territory  embraced  in 
the  charges  of  our  earlier  pastors,  but  few  of  their  congregations 
enjoyed  Divine  service  every  Lord's  day.  The  Swedish  pastors 
often  had  a  double  service  in  the  morning,  the  first  consisting  of  a 
hymn  or  the  Te  Deum,  a  sermon  on  some  parts  of  the  catechism,  a 
prayer  and  concluding  hymn,  followed  by  an  explanation  of  the  ser- 
mon, and  examination  upon  it  by  the  teacher.  Then  came  the 
principal  service,  called  "High  Mass,"  in  which  the  order  of  the 
Church  in  the  mother  country  was  observed.*"  The  German  Lu- 
therans of  Pennsylvania  of  the  last  century,  at  an  early  period,  pre- 
pared a  liturgy  on  the  basis  of  that  of  the  Savoy  congregation  in 
London.-'      Li  1747,  Muhlenberg  prescribed  to  Rev.  Schaum   an 

8*  H.  N.,  964.         85  £•_,  /vVzz/Vzc;,  3:  126.         86  Acrelius,  218. 

'^^  "  We  took  the  priutetl  Kircheii-Ageiida  of  the  Evangelical  German  con- 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  1 33 

order  which  he  was  to  observe  invarialjly  in  public  service,""  viz.  : 
r.  Confession.  2.  Gloria  in  Kxcelsis.  3.  A  Scriptural  Prayer.  4. 
Reading  of  the  Epistle.  5.  A  familiar  hymn.  6.  Reading  of  the 
Gospel,  followed  by  the  Creed.  7.  Singing  of  a  hymn,  during  which 
the  minister  ascends  the  pulpit.  8.  Sermon.  9.  Reading  of  a  litur- 
gical prayer.  10.  Catechisation  of  the  children.  The  Order  of  Ser- 
vice in  the  Church  in  Georgia  in  I757,""''  differs  in  its  details,  but 
comprises  an  opening  prayer  that  is  read,  the  use  of  the  Gospel 
and  Epistle  for  the  day,  the  reading  of  a  general  prayer  or  the  use 
of  the  Litany  after  the  sermon,  always  ending  with  the  Lord's 
Prayer.     The  Liturgy  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  of  1786,'-* 

giegation  at  Savoy  in  London,  as  the  foundation,  because  we  had  no  other  at 
hand."     H.  N.,  676. 

"*  Ev.  Reviezv,  7  :  544. 

*9  Ev.  Reviezv,  3 ;  423  :  "  The  order  of  the  public  worship  of  God  on  Sun- 
days and  festivals,  shall  be  observed  and  conducted  in  the  two  principal 
churches,  as  follows  :  (i)  In  the  morning  at  the  usual  time,  the  minister  com- 
mences with  a  prayer  out  of  the  London  Liturgy,  or  a  suitable  prayer  out  of  J. 
Arndt's  Paradies  Gaitlein ;  (2)  the  schoolmaster  reads  a  portion  of  the  Holy 
Bible,  following  in  order  the  prayer ;  (3)  a  hymn  is  given  out  by  the  minister 
from  the  Halle  Hymn  Book;  (4)  the  minister  reads  either  the  appointed  Gospel 
or  Epi&tle  ;  (5)  another  hymn  is  announced  ;  (6)  the  minister  prays  extempora- 
neously, and  closes  with  the  Lord's  Prayer;  (7)  he  reads  either  the  Gospel  or 
Epistle,  or  text  from  which  he  intends  to  preach;  (S)  the  sermon  follows,  con- 
cluded with  prayer  ;  (9)  the  minister  reads  the  general  prayer  in  the  London 
Liturgy,  or  the  Litany  in  the  Hymn-book,  and  closes  with  the  Lord's  Prayer; 
(10)  Publications  are  made  ending  with  an  Apostolic  wish;  the  congregation 
sings,  and  is  dismissed  with  the  Benediction  of  the  Lord. 

"0  The  order  in  the  Liturgy  of  17S6  is  as  follows  :  i.  A  suitable  hymn.  2. 
The  minister  goes  before  the  aitar,  and  makes  the  exhortation  to  conlession, 
and  the  confessional  prayer,  ending  with  the  Kyrie.  3.  He  pronounces  the 
votum  :  "  The  Lord  be  with  you,"  to  which  the  congregation  reply,  "And  wiih 
thy  Spirit."  4.  He  prays  again,  either  extemporaneously  or  one  of  the  Morn- 
ing prayers  in  the  Hymn-Book.  5.  Reading  of  the  Epistle.  6.  The  principal 
hymn,  during  which  he  ascends  the  pulpit.  7.  The  sermon,  which  maybe  pre- 
ceded by  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Gospel  for  the  day.  S.  He  prays  either 
the  prescribed  General  prayer  or  the  Litany,  and  must  not  vary  from  this  rule 
without  necessity.  The  prayer  closes  with  extemporaneous  intercessions  for  the 
sick,  if  desired,  and  Lord's  Prayer.  9.  Necessary  notices  then  are  given.  10. 
He  pronounces  the  iienediction,  "  The  peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  under- 
standing, keep  your  hearts  and  minds  through  Christ  Jesus  unto  everlasting  life. 
Amen."     11.  Several  stanzas   are  tlien  sung,  during  whicli  alms  may  be  col- 


134  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  English  Hymn  Books  of  the  churches  in  New  York  at  the  close 
of  the  last  century,"^  and  the  record  of  Dr.  Geo.  Lochman  in  his 
little  volume  on  the  Lutheran   Church/'^  all  present  similar  forms. 


lected  for  the  poor.  12.  The  minister  comes  again  before  the  altar,  and  ;igain 
pronounces  the  votutn,  which  is  responded  to  by  the  congregation.  13.  He 
prays  an  extemporaneous  prayer,  or  the  short  form  given  in  the  Liturgy.  14. 
Singing  of  "  the  Lord  preserve  our  coming  in  and  going  out,"  or  of  a  stanza  of 
a  hymn,  at  the  discretion  of  the  minister.     Pp.  1-12. 

91  The  following  is  the  order  in  the  "  Collection  of  Evangelical  Hymns, 
made  from  different  authors,  and  collections  for  the  English  Lutheran  Church 
in  New  Yorl<.     By  George  Slrebeck,  New  York:   1797." 

I.  Singing.  2.  Exhortation  to  Confession.  3.  Confessional  Prayer,  closing 
with  the  Kyrie.  4.  "The  Lord  be  with  you,"  responded  to  by  the  congrega- 
tion :  "And  willi  thy  Spirit."  5.  An  extemporaneous  or  read  prayer,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  minister.  6.  The  Gospel  and  Epistle  for  the  day.  7.  Singing. 
8.  Sermon.  9.  The  invariable  use  either  of  a  prescribed  general  prayer  or  the 
Litany,  closing  with  the  Lord's  Prayer.  10.  Announcing  of  the  hymn,  and  the 
sentence  :  "The  peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  understanding,"  etc.  11.  The 
minister  descends  from  the  pulpit,  and  pronounces  again  :  "  The  Lord  be  with 
you,"  responded  to  again  by  the  congregation,  makes  a  short  prayer,  either 
according  to  a  given  form,  or  extemporaneously,  and  concludes  with  the  patri- 
archal benediction. 

That  prescribed  in  the  "  Hymn  and  Prayer  Book  for  the  use  of  such  Lutheran 
Churches  as  use  the  English  Language,  collected  by  John  C.  Kunze,  D.  D., 
senior  of  the  Lutheran  clergy  in  the  State  of  New  York,  New  York;  1795,"  is 
almost  identical  with  the  order  given  by  Mr.  Strebeck.  A  copy  of  both  vol- 
umes is  in  the  Library  of  Pennsylvania  College,  and  of  the  Lutheran  Historical 
Society. 

9'^ "  Public  worship  is  at  present  regulated  and  conducted  in  the  following 
order :  The  beginning  is  made  by  a  few  passages  of  Scripture,  or  by  a  short 
ejaculation,  and  by  singing  a  hymn.  Prayers  are  then  read,,  consisting  of  con- 
fession of  sins,  praise  and  thanksgiving,  petition  and  intercession;  or  the  min- 
ister may  pray  ex  tempore.  A  portion  of  Scripture  is  read,  which  may  be  either 
the  Gospel  or  Epistle  for  the  day,  or  any  other  portion  suited  to  the  occasion, 
and  relating  to  the  subject  on  which  the  sermon  is  preached.  Another  hymn 
is  sung.  Then  llie  sermon  is  preached,  which  should  not  take  up  more  than 
three-quarters  of  an  hour.  Before  sermon,  a  short  prayer  7nay  be  offered  up, 
but  after  sermon,  it  is  considered  necessary  to  pray.  Anotlier  hymn  is  sung, 
during  which  or  before  which  the  alms  are  collected.  The  congregation  is  dis- 
missed with  the  benediction.  In  some  congregations,  a  doxology  is  sung  after 
the  benediction."  "  History,  Doctrine,  and  Discipline  of  the  Evangelical 
I>utheran  Church,"  by  George  Lochman,  A.  M.,  Harrisburg,  1818,  p.  151. 


DR.    JACOBS     ESSAY.  1 35 

In  all  parts  of  the  Church,  the  Church  year  was  diligently  observed.'" 
Its  omission  in  some  of  our  English  churches  has  been  a  devia- 
tion of  a  comparatively  modern  period.  The  sermons  of  the  earlier 
ministers  were  generally  prepared  by  the  writing  out  of  a  very  full 
and  well  arranged  scheme,  which  was  thoroughly  committed.  Sev- 
eral manuscript  volumes  of  such  schemes  by  Dr.  Kunze,  are  in  the 
library  of  Pennsylvania  College.  Dr.  Helmuth  writes  of  his  col- 
league, Schmidt,  that  whereas  his  Mss.  contained  dispositions  on 
nearly  all  the  texts  in  the  Bible,  yet  that  he  left  only  two  sermons 
that  were  written  in  full.''*  However  inconsistent  with  the  rules  the 
practice  may  have  been,  yet  the  Kirchen-Ordniing  oi  17O3  forbids 
the  filling  of  the  pulpit  in  the  pastor's  stead,  "by  any  preacher  or 
student  who  has  not  been  examined  and  regularly  called  and 
ordained,  according  to  our  Evangelical  Church  Constitution."^^ 
The  value  they  placed  upon  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Baptism  is 
manifest  from  the  care  which  our  fathers  took  to  have  their  children 
baptized  at  the  earliest  age.'-"* 

We  have  thus  briefly  traced  a  few  of  the  features  of  our  inner  his- 
tory. The  great  problem  before  us  now  is  to  properly  avail  our- 
selves of  this  history  in  laying  broad  and  deep  the  foundation  for  the 
promising  future  that  is  opening  for  our  Church.  The  individualism 
which  most  of  us  have  inherited  from  our  German  ancestors,  must  be 

9*Acrelius  and  Hall.  Nach.,  passion.  See  orders  of  service  given  above. 
The  following  from  the  constitution  of  the  Church  in  Georgia  is  worthy  of  note: 
'•  As  h:\s  been  customary  from  the  beginning,  the  three  grand  festivals,  Christ- 
mas, Easter  and  Pentecost  shall  be  celebrated  two  days ;  also  shall  be  cele- 
brated New  Year's  day,  Epiphany,  the  anniversary  of  our  fathers'  arrival  be- 
tween the  glh  and  nth  of  March;  Maundy  Thursday  (when  the  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  shall  be  especially  explained  for  edification),  and  Good 
Friday,  every  year.  From  Esto  iMihi  until  Easter,  in  the  afternoon  service,  the 
history  of  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  shall  be  propounded  and  ex- 
plained, catechetically  and  paragraphically,  either  from  an  Evangelist  or  from 
a  Harmony  approved  by  our  venerable  fathers."  Ev.  Rcvitiv  3  :  424.  All 
the  older  Church  records  show  that  they  followed  invariably  the  Churcli  year. 

^^Evatigelisches  A/agasin,  Vol.  2  (1813),  p   7.  "^  Hall.  Nach.,  963. 

^o  The  earliest  records  of  our  churches  in  Adams  county,  served  in  the  last 
century  by  Pastor  Eager,  give  abundant  testimony  on  this  point.  Here  is  one 
memorandum  we  have  made  :  Out  of  61  children  baptized  in  the  Benders'  con- 
gregation, the  age  of  8  is  not  given,  23  were  baptized  under  the  age  of  one 
month,  23  between  one  and  two  months;  the  oldest  baptized  was  between  seven 
and  ei;^ht  months,  while  one  was  baptized  when  two  days  old,  a  second  when 


136  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

subordinated  to  the  welfare  of  the  whole.  The  progress  of  our  one  Lu- 
theran Church  must  be  esteemed  of  more  importance  than  that  of  any 
particular  branch.  Development  on  the  third  and  fourth  bases  is  to  be 
rendered  harmonious;  not  by  the  dominancy  of  either  party,  but  by 
the  careful  study,  and  the  humble  submission  of  both  to  the  unerring 
Word  of  God.  German  love  of  liberty,  conscientiousness,  cordiality, 
respect  for  antiquity,  delight  in  research,  steadfast  courage  and  un- 
daunted perseverance;  Swedish  seriousness,  devoutness  and  sub- 
jection to  law ;  Norwegian  vigor  and  purity ;  Danish  caution, 
thoughtfulness  and  love  of  peace  ;  Icelandic  simplicity,  generosity 
and  earnestness  in  religion ;  Finnish  affection  and  tenderness,  are  to 
unite  with  x\merican  enterprise,  energy  and  love  of  the  practical,  on 
the  vast  plane  for  development  amidst  varied  elements  almost  in 
perpetual  motion,  opened  for  our  Church  on  this  continent.  We 
have  much  to  learn  from  one  another.  We  lament  our  divisions, 
and  all  declare  them  to  be  wrong.  Yet  each  of  our  general  bodies 
has,  perhaps,  a  special  office  in  the  present  emergency  to  train  the 
Church  of  the  future  for  its  high  mission;  and,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
guard  against  Rationalism  and  Infidelity,  and,  on  the  other,  to 
transmit  the  influences  of  our  Lutheran  faith  to  other  communions. 
For  as  we  believe  that  our  Church  teaches  the  gospel  in  its  purest 
form,  so  also  we  hope  and  pray  not  only  that  all  who  bear  our  name, 
but  also  all  Christian  people  in  this  land,  may  confess  it  as  such. 

We  are  yet  in  a  formative  state.  Our  Church  feels  bewildered 
amidst  its  new  surroundings,  and  confused  by  many  of  the  entirely 
new  issues  that  she  encounters,  and  modes  of  adaptation  necessary 
in  this  western  world.  She  has  learned  some  lessons  by  bitter  ex- 
perience ;  she  is  learning  others  by  new  trials.  The  age  of  experi- 
ments is  gradually  yielding  to  that  of  sober  and  mature  manhood; 
and  beneath  all,  there  is  the  vigor  and  enthusiasm  and  perpetual 
youth  of  a  strength  derived  from  the  possession  of  the  truth,  that 
must  triumph  finally  over  all  obstacles,  and  result,  after  many  strug- 
gles and  apparent  defeats,  in  a  Church  united  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone. 

four  days  old,  a  third  when  eight,  and  three  when  nine  days  old.  The  records 
at  Arndstown,  and  those  at  Christ's  church,  Liltleslovvn,  during  the  pastorate  of 
Wildbahn  (1763),  show  thai  the  practice  there  was  the  same. 


DISCUSSION.  1 37 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  F.  W.  CONRAD,  D.  D.   {General  Synod) 

Dr  F.  W.  Conrad  said  :  In  referring  to  tlie  history  of  the  Gen- 
eral Council,  the  author  of  the  instructive  paper  just  read  stated, 
that  the  Franckean  Synod  had  been  received  by  the  General  Synod 
without  having  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession.  This  statement, 
according  to  my  recollection,  I  regard  as,  strictly  si)eaking,  incor- 
rect.    The  facts  of  the  case  are  these  : 

Dr.  B.  Kurtz,  President  of  the  General  Synod,  was  requested  by 
letter  to  inform  the  members  of  the  Franckean  Synod  what  they 
must  do  in  order  to  be  admitted  into  the  General  Synod.  He  re- 
plied, that  nothing  more  was  necessary  than  to  adopt  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  General  Synod,  and  appoint  the  requisite  number  of 
delegates.  The  constitution  of  the  General  Synod  was  accordingly 
adopted  by  the  Franckean  Synod,  and  delegates  appointed  to  the 
General  Synod. 

The  Constitution  of  the  General  Synod  provided  that  any  "regu- 
larly constituted  Lutheran  Synod,  holding  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  Bible,  as  taught  by  our  Church,"  might  be  received  into  con- 
nection with  it.  These  doctrines  are  set  forth,  according  to  unani- 
mous consent,  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Now,  although  the 
Franckean  Synod  had  not  directly  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
they  had  indirectly  and  really  adopted  it  by  adopting  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  General  Synod,  and  thereby  declared  that  they  held  "the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible  as  taught  by  our  Church,"  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  This  was  tantamount  to  its  adoption  by  a 
formal  resolution,  and  imposed  the  same  confessional  obligation. 
It  pledged  the  synod  to  teach  "  the  doctrines  of  our  Church,"  as 
taught  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  delegates  of  the  Franckean 
Synod,  accordingly,  declared  in  writing  that  their  Synod  clearly 
understood  that,  in  adopting  the  Constitution,  it  adoptetl  the  doctrinal 
basis  of  the  General  Synod,  as  expressed  in  its  formula  for  subscrib- 
ing the  Augsburg  Confession  contained  in  its  Formula  of  Govern- 


138  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

ment  and  Discipline.  But,  as  the  General  Synod  imposed  upon 
the  Franckean  Synod,  as  a  condition  of  full  reception,  the  formal 
adoption  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  according  to  its  Formula; 
and  as  it  did  not  receive  its  delegates  at  Fort  Wayne  until  after 
being  certified  that  the  imposed  condition  had  been  complied  with, 
its  reception  at  York  was  only  conditional,  and  the  Franckean 
Synod  was  not  fully  admitted  into  the  General  Synod  until  it  had 
formally  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

The  construction  and  confessional  force  which  we  have  given  to 
the  adoption  of  its  Constitution  has  been  exemplified  by  the  official 
acts  of  the  General  Synod.  Neither  the  New  York  Ministerium, 
nor  the  Pittsburgh  Synod,  nor  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania,  had 
by  express  resolution  adopted  the  xA.ugsburg  Confession,  prior  to 
their  applications  for  admission  into  the  General  Synod.  But  they 
had  all  adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Synod,  by  which 
they  declared  that  they  held  "  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
as  taught  by  our  Church."  This  the  General  Synod  construed  as 
involving  a  real,  although  indirect,  adoption  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  constituted  each  one  of  them,  as  well  as  the  Franckean 
Synod,  "  regularly  constituted  Lutheran  Synods,"  in  the  sense  of 
the  Constitution. 

In  the  heat  of  the  discussion  the  fact  was  overlooked  that,  as  "no 
man  can  serve  two  masters,"  neither  can  a  Synod  be  governed  and 
characterized  by  two  different  confessions.  As  soon,  therefore,  as 
the  Franckean  Synod  adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Synod, 
it  subjected  itself  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  became  Lutheran. 
And  by  necessary  consequence,  it  could  no  longer  be  held  subject 
to  its  former  confession,  and  ceased  to  be  an  isolated,  separatistic 
body. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  recall  and  improve  another  occurrence 
at  York.  God  is  said  to  have  the  hearts  of  all  men  in  His  hand,  and 
that  He  can  turn  them  as  He  doth  the  rivers  of  water.  He  accord- 
ingly governs  the  Church,  through  the  sincere  convictions  and  con- 
scientious judgment  of  its  ministers  and  members.    When,  therefore, 


DISCUSSION.  139 

an  important  ecclesiastical  question  has  been  thoroughly  discussed 
and  a  decision  reached  by  an  almost  or  quite  unanimous  vote,  that 
judgment  ought  to  be  regarded  as  determining  the  question  for 
the  time  being  under  existing  circumstances.  To  disturb  a  decision 
thus  attained  immediately  afterwards,  without  additional  light  and 
the  most  urgent  necessity,  must  be  hazardous,  and  its  reversal  often 
proves  to  have  been  ill-advised,  unfortunate,  and  not  unfrequently 
wrong. 

Such  a  case  occurred  at  York.  Differences  of  opinion  prevailed 
in  regard  to  the  character  and  continued  force  of  the  Articles  of 
Faith  of  the  Franckean  Synod,  as  well  as  its  adoption  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  The  subject  was  discussed  during  an  entire  day 
and  an  almost  unanimous  decision  reached  at  its  close.  This  de- 
cision was  reconsidered  the  next  morning,  and  after  a  long  and  an 
exciting  debate,  reversed.  A  protest  signed  by  members  of  ten 
Synods  was  presented,  an  answer  followed,  the  delegates  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod  withdrew,  the  General  Synod  was  rent  in  twain 
and  the  Lutheran  Church  again  divided !  While,  therefore,  I 
maintain  that  the  Franckean  Synod  had  met  the  constitutional 
requirements  of  the  General  Synod,  and  cannot  justify  the  grounds 
upon  which  the  delegates  of  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  withdrew 
from  it,  I  am  nevertheless  compelled,  in  the  light  of  the  facts  of  this 
case,  and  all  the  consequences  resulting  therefrom,  to  regard  the 
reversal  of  that  decision  as  one  belonging  to  the  class  of  injudicious 
decisions  just  described.  Some  "  things  are  lawful,  but  not"  always 
"expedient."  But  He  who  can  make  even  the  wrath  of  man  to 
praise  Him,  can  and  will  overrule  all  things  for  the  good  of  His 
Church. 

REMARKS  OF   REV.    PROF.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.   D.     {General   Synod.) 

There  will  be  but  one  opinion,  I  suppose,  in  regard  to  the  value 
of  the  paper  which  has  been  read.  It  presents  a  very  clear  narrative 
of  some  of  the  most  important  events  in  our  history,  and  is  just 
what  many  will  desire  to  possess.     I  will  venture  to  make  a  few  addi- 


140  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

tional  statements  on  the  point  raised  by  Dr.  Conrad's  speech.  The 
General  Synod  was  not  hasty  in  its  action.  After  long  discussion, 
the  General  vSynod  declined  to  receive  the  Franckean  Synod  on  the 
ground  of  its  not  having  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Sub- 
sequent to  this  action  the  delegation  presented  a  paper,  stating  that 
in  adopting  the  Formula  of  the  General  Synod,  they  understood 
they  were  adopting  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  their  confession  of 
faith,  and  pledging  themselves  to  comply  with  the  requirement  of 
the  General  Synod  in  this  respect.  The  question  of  their  reception 
was  reconsidered,  and  they  were  received,  but  only  provisionally  ; 
that  unless  satisfactory  evidence  Avas  furnished  of  their  acceptance 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  they  would  not  be  considered  in  the 
General  Synod.  And  accordingly  at  the  next  meeting,  at  Fort 
Wayne,  these  delegates  were  not  received  until  after  the  organiza- 
tion, and  the  evidence  furnished  that  they  had  fully  complied  with 
the  conditions  of  their  reception.  The  action  of  the  General  Synod 
was  very  cautious  and  conservative. 

This  recalls  another  case  which  deserves  to  be  mentioned.  The 
Melanchthon  Synod  made  application  for  admission  into  the  General 
Synod  under  circumstances  very  similar  to  those  of  the  Franckean 
Synod,  and  met  with  similar  opposition.  It  was  maintained  that 
the  Melanchthon  Synod  had  not  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
or  fairly  complied  with  the  conditions  of  admission.  Its  whole  history 
was  regarded  as  irregular  and  not  very  Lutheran.  The  opposition 
was  very  decided  and  persistent.  Yet  the  General  Synod  received  the 
Melanchthon  Synod,  without  imposing  conditions,  but  with  a  very 
humble  request  that  it  would  conform  its  position  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  General  Synod.  There  were  no  withdrawals  of  dele- 
gates, nor  divisions  in  the  body.  I  hope  I  will  not  be  deemed  dis- 
courteous, when  I  remind  the  Diet  that  my  friend,  Dr.  Krauth,  was 
the  champion  at  that  time  of  the  Melanchthon  Synod,  and  of  its  ad- 
mission into  the  General  Synod.  Unless  my  memory  is  at  fault,  he 
drew  up  the  resolutions  for  the  admission  of  the  Melanchthon  Synod, 


I 


i 
I 


DISCUSSION.  141 

using  such  gentle  terms,  and  withstood  the  opposition.    Times  have 
changed. 

Now  I  do  not  see  on  what  grounds  so  much  ado  is  made  by  some 
over  the  reception  of  the  Franckean  Synod,  while  the  reception  of 
the  Melanchthon  Synod  is  justified.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  action 
of  the  General  Synod  was  more  cautious  and  more  conservative  at 
York  than  at  Pittsburgh.  I  think  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  at 
York  can  be  consistently  defended,  and  that  that  body  is  not  respon- 
sible for  the  consequences. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  PROF.  C.  P.  KRAUTII,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

{^General  Council.) 

Dr.  Krauth  spoke  in  terms  of  strong  commendation  of  the  paper 
read  by  Prof  Jacobs.  It  shows  great  thoroughness  of  research, 
especially  in  directions  where  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  facts  can 
only  be  estimated  by  one  who  has  had  occasion  to  attempt  the  same 
sort  of  work.  It  is  clear,  well  arranged,  presenting  facts  in  just 
proportion,  and  with  the  most  absolute  fairness.  The  production  of 
this  paper  alone  would  have  repaid  for  the  calling  of  this  Diet. 

As  the  Franckean  Synod  had  been  brought  into  the  discussion,  he 
would  take  the  opportunity  of  correcting  a  misapprehension  in 
regard  to  the  position  of  his  venerated  father  on  that  question.  His 
father  was  quoted  as  one  who  held  the  ruling  at  Ft.  Wayne  to  be 
correct,  and  there  his  testimony  was  supposed  to  end.  It  was  true 
he  did  so  regard  it,  and  looked  upon  the  Pennsylvania  Ministe- 
rium  as  having  put  itself  out  of  the  General  Synod  by  the  with- 
drawal of  iti5  delegates  at  York.  But  he  constantly  added,  with  no 
reserve  as  of  a  thing  spoken  confidentially,  as  all  who  heard  him 
speak  of  it  can  testify,  that  "the  admission  of  the  Franckean  Synod 
was  an  outrage,  fully  justifying  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  in 
withdrawing;  and  that  the  only  matter  of  regret  was  that  having  with- 
drawn for  so  righteous  a  cause,  it  should  have  endeavored  to  return." 
The  action  at  the  close  of  the  first  day  was  of  the  gentlest  and  most 


142  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

conciliatory  kind.  It  completely  harmonized  the  General  Synod. 
The  Franckean  Synod  itself  was  not  dissatisfied — so  reasonable  and 
moderate  was  the  action.  The  influences  which  disturbed  the  set- 
tled question  were  at  work  outside  of  the  hours  of  meeting,  and 
were  partisan  and  mischievous.  The  Franckean  Synod  had  not 
undergone  any  very  radical  change  from  the  time  when  the  General 
Synod  had  passed  a  resolution  condemning  its  fanatical  and  disor- 
derly practices.  The  whole  debate  showed  that  it  was  completely 
un-Lutheran,  and  that  there  had  been  no  intelligent  conformity  with 
the  requirements  of  the  Constitution.  After  its  reception  at  York, 
many  of  the  best  men  in  the  General  Synod,  some  of  whom  are  still 
among  its  most  honored  names,  united  in  protest  against  the  admis- 
sion. 

In  reply  to  Dr.  Brown,  Dr.  Krauth  said  that  he  had  not  been 
the  champion  of  the  Melanchthon  Synod ;  on  the  contrary,  he  had 
strongly  opposed,  on  principle,  its  admission.  But  when  the  facts 
showed  that  the  precedents  established  in  the  admission  of  a  num- 
ber of  other  Synods,  and  the  retention  of  various  bodies  which 
openly  threw  away  the  Augsburg  Confession  for  the  Definite  Plat- 
form, had  made  it  gross  inconsistency  and  virtual  self-destruction 
for  the  General  Synod  to  reject  the  Melanchthon  Synod,  he  had 
offered  as  the  best  thing  the  case  allowed,  that  to  the  reception 
of  the  Melanchthon  Synod  should  be  attached  a  request  that  it 
should  take  action  which  would  remove  the  causes  of  offence.  This 
was  all,  in  fact,  the  General  Synod  had  left  itself  the  power  of  doing. 
It  was  the  thorough-going  opposition  which  he  had  felt  and  shown 
to  the  admission  of  the  Melanchthon  Synod,  which  made  him  the 
proper  person  to  offer  this  resolution.  But  there  were  very  many 
respects  in  which  the  character  of  the  Melanchthon  Synod,  and  of 
its  plea  for  admission,  was  free  from  that  which  made  the  Franckean 
Synod  so  totally  unfit  to  be  a  member  of  any  Lutheran  Body. 

As  to  the  implication  of  change,  he  had  never  waited  to  have  his 
real  change  of  views  brought  as  a  charge.     He  was  the  first  to  make 


DISCUSSION.  143 

that  change  known  by  frank  acknowledgment.  There  is  no  peril 
greater  to  a  man's  love  of  truth  than  a  false  pride  of  mechanical 
consistency.  But  his  seeming  inconsistencies  were  the  long  growth 
of  ripening  consistency.  They  were  not  the  result  of  want  of  a 
fixed  principle — the  shifting  from  principle  to  principle — but  the 
outgrowth  of  one  great  set  of  principles,  maturing  and  bringing  into 
more  perfect  harmony  the  conviction  and  the  act — such  as  (to  com- 
pare the  very  little  with  the  very  great)  Luther  himself  passed 
through.  From  the  hour  that  by  God's  grace,  through  many  a  sore 
struggle  and  conflict,  he  had  begun  to  approach  the  firm  ground,  up 
to  the  present,  he  had  moved  in  one  line.  His  present  convictions 
were  connected  by  unbroken  succession  with  those  earliest  ones.  The 
law  of  growth  is  the  law  of  life.  The  inconsistencies  of  the  earnest 
seeker  of  truth  are  like  the  inconsistencies  of  the  oak  with  its  acorn. 
There  are  changes,  but  it  is  the  one  life  which  has  conditioned  them 
all. 

Dr.  Conrad  had  spoken  of  the  testimony  as  to  alleged  errors  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession — the  Testimony  adopted  by  the  General 
Synod  at  York — as  identical  with  the  one  which  had  been  prepared 
by  Dr.  Krauth,  and  adopted  in  the  Pittsburgh  Synod.  But  not  only 
did  the  history  of  the  two  documents  involve  a  difference  in  their 
meaning,  where  they  coincided  in  words,  but  the  language  itself  was 
in  some  respects  materially  changed.  The  two  documents  were 
related  somewhat  as  the  Invariata  and  the  Variata,  but  with  the 
changes  made  by  other  hands,  against  the  will  of  the  author.  He 
disavowed,  therefore,  the  Testimony  of  the  General  Synod  as  prop- 
erly his. 

Dr.  Conrad's  acknowledgment  of  the  great  mistake  made  in  disturb- 
ing the  original  disposition  of  the  Franckean  Synod  case,  was  worthy 
of  his  candor,  and  could  not  fail  to  do  good. 


144  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  D.  P.  ROSENMILLER.     {General  Synod.) 

For  many  years  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania, 
only  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  mentioned.  It  has,  in  fact,  been 
only  about  twelve  years  since  it  was  altered,  and  the  other  symbol- 
ical books  adopted  in  such  a  shape  that  the  Augsburg  Confession 
dare  not  speak  in  any  other  sense  than  they  speak.  In  the  Liturgy 
adopted  by  the  Synod  in  early  days,  the  word  Lutheran  did  not  occur 
in  the  services  for  Ordination,  Adult  Baptism  and  Confirmation. 
These  first  documents  were  drawn  up  by  the  patriarch  ot  our  Church, 
and  he  evidently  had  the  impression  that  the  German  Reformed  and 
Lutheran  would  merge  into  one  Evangelical  Church.  I  have  exam- 
ined the  Church  Constitutions,  drawn  up  by  him,  in  which  he  gives 
the  right  to  ministers,  during  the  week,  by  day  or  night,  to  hold 
meetings  for  edification  and  prayer. 

In  this  connection  I  would  endeavor  to  throw  some  light  on  a 
document  which  had  some  connection  with  the  unfortunate  separa- 
tion which  took  place  at  Fort  Wayne.  After  the  delegates  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Synod,  two  years  previously  at  York,  Pa.,  had  pro- 
tested against  the  reception  of  the  Franckean  Synod,  and  reported 
to  their  own  Synod,  a  committee  of  seven  was  appointed  to  report  on 
their  action.  The  report  of  that  committee  was,  that  the  action  of 
the  delegates  should  be  approved  and  sustained.  But  the  chairman 
[Rev.  Rosenmiller. — Ed.]  explained  before  the  Synod  that  this  report 
did  not  decide  that  the  action  of  the  delegates  was  correct.  But,  as 
they  acted  according  to  their  honest  convictions,  although  their 
judgment  may  have  been  wrong,  yet  their  action  should  be  approved 
and  sustained.  And  this  approval  was  not  considered  as  a  separa- 
tion from  the  General  Synod,  on  the  part  of  the  Synod  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

The  fifth  paper  was  then  read  : 


i 


I 


EDUCATION  IN  THFi  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 

BY  REV.  M.  VALENTINE,  D.  D.,  PRESIDENT  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 
COLLEGE,  GETTYSBURG,  PA. 

IN  calling  attention  to  Education  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the 
United  States,  I  am  permitted  to  feel  that  the  subject  is  one  of 
intrinsic  importance  and  wide  bearings.  It  does  not,  indeed,  ex- 
press anything  belonging  to  the  Church's  divine  foundation,  but  it 
concerns  her  great  work.  Without  the  importance  that  attaches  to 
discussions  settling  the  dogmas  of  the  faith,  it  must,  however,  carry 
the  interest  that  ever  belongs  to  the  chief  means  by  which  the  mis- 
sion of  Christianity  and  the  work  of  the  Church  are  to  be  accom- 
plished. The  relation  of  means,  it  must  be  remembered,  gives  even 
to  doctrine  its  high  importance.  Christianity,  even  as  a  whole,  in 
all  its  grand  truths  and  divine  powers,  is  not  for  itself,  but  a  means 
looking  to  the  salvation  of  men  and  the  redemption  of  the  earth. 
Education  looks  to  the  same  end  for  which  God  has  given  the  sacred 
doctrines.  It  expresses  one  of  the  modes  through  which  the  power 
of  salvation  goes  into  effect  and  pushes  on  toward  its  goal.  How 
directly,  as  if  by  normal  action,  this  power  moves  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  its  mission  through  the -agency  of  education,  is  appar- 
ent from  the  rise  of  Christian  schools  among  the  first  manifestations 
of  the  Church's  life  and  activity.  As  if  the  earliest  preaching  of 
the  gospel  was  the  marshaling  of  the  fit  agencies  for  the  grand  work 
of  conquest  and  progress,  these  schools  quickly  sprang  up  and  stood 
in  the  front  lines  of  the  holy  service.  We  see  them  at  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  Edessa,  Nisibis,  and  elsewhere.  They  held  forth  the  word 
of  life,  uplifted  high  the  standard  of  the  cross,  and  became  con- 
spicuous summits  of  the  Church's  power  and  defence  in  those  early 
centuries. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  life  of  the  Church  of  Christ  has 
been  meant  to  enter  into  and  ally  with  its  own  blessed  ends  all 
normal  human  powers  and  movements.     Christianity  is  not  a  thing 

(M5) 


146 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


to  be,  or  capable  of  being,  held  as  a  thing  by  itself,  apart  from  the 
offices  and  activities  of  life.  It  comes  as  a  force  to  enter  every  other 
force  that  legitimately  belongs  to  the  constitution  of  the  world,  and 
to  sanctify  and  claim  all  for  God  and  righteousness.  It  may  not 
usually,  indeed,  undertake  the  functions  of  other  constitutions,  but 
it  is  to  permeate  all  with  its  supernatural  truth  and  life,  and  make 
each  department,  in  its  own  sphere,  bear  its  proper  part  in  the  ag- 
gregate redemption  of  the  earth.  Education,  however,  is  a  func- 
tion that  falls  so  immediately  in  the  line  of  the  Church's  work, 
expresses  so  directly  what  is  part  of  her  essential  office,  that  it  may 
not  only  be  pervaded  by  her  sanctifying  influence,  like,  for  instance, 
the  separate  civil  power,  but  be  possessed  and  used  as  her  rightful 
agency.  The  Church  is  instrumentally  the  light  of  the  world.  Her 
great  office  is  to  teach — to  teach  all  nations.  She  holds  the  highest 
knowledge.  This  highest  knowledge  includes  and  appropriates  all 
the  rest,  and  so  Christianity  normally  flows  through  learning  into 
its  best  efficiency  and  appropriate  victories. 

The  Church  can  never  admit  that  Christianity  and  science  are  an- 
tagonisms. She  knows  how  utterly  false  is  the  impression,  sometimes 
sought  to  be  made,  that  these  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict,  and 
religion  is  per  se  unscientific  and  science  must  be  irreligious.  She 
understands  well  that  they  are  the  readings  of  God's  two  great  reve- 
lations, and  if  both  are  read  correctly  all  the  various  colored  facts 
blend  and  shine  in  the  pure  white  light  of  God's  full  truth.  With- 
out doubt  Creation  is  an  expression  of  God's  thought,  as  Redemp- 
tion is  of  His  love;  and  there  can  be  conflict  only  by  wresting  the 
Bible  or  Nature  and  putting  false  speech  into  its  lips.  And  as  Re- 
demption, foreseen  and  provided  for  before  all  worlds,  expresses  the 
final  cause,  the  ultimate  end  of  all  the  frame-work  and  movement  of 
the  world,  Nature  stands  necessarily  as  a  subordinate  factor  in  this 
aggregate  movement,  and  can  be  rightly  understood  only  in  the 
light  of  the  great  fact  of  Redemption.  This  world's  structure  and 
history  yield  to  us  their  true  meanings  only  when  viewed  in  the  in- 
terpretative illumination  of  the  cross  of  Christ  and  the  eschatology 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  Church,  therefore,  holds  the  true  key 
to  the  solution  of  Nature.  Christianity  has  thus  the  highest  com- 
mission to  lead  the  way  through  the  fields  of  science.  A  sublime 
ordination  to  the  work  is  given  in  the  qualification  to  do  it.  To 
atheistic  evolutionism,  which  denies  all  design,  adaptation,  and  end 


DR.    VALENTINES    ESSAY.  147 

in  Nature,  or  to  infidelity,  which  fails  to  see  that  end  in  th.c  new 
earth  of  redemption,  Nature  is  of  course  an  insoluble  mystery,  and 
science  fragmentary,  disjointed,  incoherent.  The  Church  is  the 
best  teacher  of  the  truth  in  these  broad  domains  of  culture.  The 
children  of  light,  with  the  torch  of  God's  truth  flashing  every  way 
and  lighting  up  the  world,  are  to  lead  men,  especially  the  young, 
into  the  divine  thoughts  that  lie  fixed,  like  compactly  written  hiero- 
glyphics, in  all  the  phenomena  of  the  earth.  Thus  will  come  the 
right  correlation  between  science  and  religion — revelation  assisting 
and  guiding  reason  to  the  highest  and  best  conception  of  nature, 
and  then,  in  turn,  receiving  the  light  of  all  scientific  discovery 
thrown  back  on  it,  for  still  profounder  and  more  perfect  understand- 
ing of  its  own  meaning.  Science  then — the  term  being  used  in  the 
broadest  sense,  for  all  known  truth  in  the  higher  ranges  of  learning 
— is  a  true  handmaid  of  religion  and  falls  rightly  into  the  service  of 
the  Church  of  redemption.  As  among  the  mightiest  agencies  that 
bear  on  human  welfare,  mold  civilizations  and  guide  enterprise 
and  progress,  this  is  ever  to  be  held  by  the  Church,  as  pre-eminently 
her  own,  to  be  pervaded  by  her  own  light  and  power  for  conduct- 
ing the  world's  movement  to  the  consummation  to  which  Providence 
is  holding  the  helm. 

In  coming  to  these  shores  the  Church  seized  a  point  of  grandest 
power  and  success,  in  undertaking  to  give  the  country  its  higheraca- 
demic  and  collegiate  education.  In  her  various  branches,  she  began 
the  planting  of  schools  and  colleges,  that  the  education  of  the  young 
for  all  the  higher  spheres  of  life  and  influence  might  be  conducted 
under  Christian  auspices.  So  our  land  has  been  made  a  land  of  ( -hris- 
tian  education.  Of  the  nine  colleges  established  before  the  revolu- 
tion, eight  were  begun  under  Church  auspices.  Of  the  three  hundred 
and  forty-two  colleges  now  reported  in  our  national  statistics  of  edu- 
cation, two  hundred  and  eight  six  are  in  such  general  Christian  rela- 
tion.^ The  good  thus  accomplished,  in  Christianizing  all  the  subordi- 
nate ranges  of  education,  in  sh.aping  leading  and  regulative  thought 
for  tlie  whole  land,  in  elevating  our  common  morality  and  securing  a 
generally  favorable  attitude  toward  the  Gospel,  is  simply  incalculable. 
What  the  condition  of  our  land  or  the  state  of  the  Church  would  be 
without  this,  or  with  the  order  reversetl,  imagination  may  only 
faintly  picture.    If  the  higher  education  had  been  left  by  the  Church 

lAit.  Colleges,  Kiddle  and  Schem's  Cyclopedia  of  Education. 


148  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

to  merely  secular  control,  with  purely  secular  principles  and  secular 
ends — if  skepticism  and  unbelief  had  been  left  in  possession  of  the 
philosophy,  science  and  culture  of  the  schools,  making,  as  they  are 
wont,  these  great  powers  seem  to  contradict  Christianity  and  dis- 
credit the  verities  of  faith — if  such  godless  higher  education  had  then 
unchristianized  our  common-school  education,  as  it  would  have  done, 
for  the  millions  of  the  masses — what  floods  of  irreligion  and  sin 
would  be  sweeping  over  the  land,  endangering  every  holy  thing  in 
which  we  to-day  rejoice  ! 

Education  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United  States  must  be 
viewed  as  on  the  background  of  these  general  principles  and  facts. 
It  is  to  be  looked  upon,  at  least  so  far  as  college  education  is  con- 
cerned, as  the  part  that  belongs  to  us  in  this  great  work.  What  that 
part  should  be,  and  how  it  may  be  best  accomplished,  are  the  ques- 
tions that  concern  us  in  this  discussion. 

I.  The  proper  position  and  range  of  work  for  our  Church  in  edu- 
cation should  be  held,  it  seems  to  me,  as  imperatively  fixed  for  us, 
by  a  number  of  considerations. 

First.  The  fact  that  the  Lutheran  Church  arose  in  living  connec- 
tion with  the  agencies  of  higher  learning.  The  restoration  of  Bib- 
lical Christianity  took  place  among  the  fruits  of  study  and  the 
power  of  universities  God  made  Luther  climb  up  through  all 
ranges  to  the  summits  of  learning,  before  putting  into  his  hand  and 
deep  in  his  soul,  the  commission  to  reform  the  Church.  He  seated 
him  in  a  university  chair.  He  gave  him  co-laborers  in  similar  posi- 
tion. Providence  wheeled  these  institutions  into  front  line.  From 
the  lecture-desks  of  Wittenberg  the  Church  of  the  Reformat  ion  did 
much  of  the  grandest  work  of  that  grand  century.  She  took  organic 
form  with  this  instrument  of  power  in  her  hands. 

Secondly.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  always  been  an  educating 
Church,  standing,  with  its  great  institutions  and  learned  men,  in  the 
very  first  rank  of  Christian  scholarship  and  culture.  Through  all 
her  history  she  has  been  distinguished  for  her  renowned  universities 
and  her  erudite  scholars.  She  has  been  the  patron  of  learning, 
using  its  power  for  the  defense  and  victory  of  the  Gospel. 

She  owes  it,  thus,  to  her  historical  characteristics  to  take  no  inferior 
or  unworthy  relation  to  the  higher  education  in  this  country.  At 
present,  we  speak  only  of  academic  or  collegiate  education.  And 
we  assert  that,  with  no  denomination  of  Christians  in  our  land 


DR.    VALENTINES    ESSAY.  1 49 

would  indifference  to  education  or  an  inferior  standard  in  it  l)e  in 
greater  degree  a  contradiction  and  denial  of  itself  than  with  the 
Lutlieran  Church.  We  feel,  too,  that  we  have  a  clear  warrant  to 
impose  on  ourselves  the  obligation  of  a  full  share  in  Christianizing 
the  higher  culture  of  the  country,  in  the  claim  we  make  for  our 
Church,  that  she  is  in  an  eminent  degree  the  Church  of  the  pure 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  If  we  believe  that  her  confessional  position 
and  consequent  Church  life  represent  the  best  and  truest  onflow  of 
genuine  Christianity,  we  must  believe  that  we  have  a  commission, 
with  a  clear  divine  signature,  to  bring  to  the  greatest  degree  possible 
the  power  of  this  education  under  the  shaping  influence  of  our 
Church.  ^ 

It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  there  is,  at  the  present  time,  the  pres- 
sure of  an  increased  obligation  on  all  the  Christian  Churches  of  our 
land,  to  strengthen  their  educational  work.  As  a  result,  on  the  one 
hand,  of  the  attitude  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  toward  common 
schools;  and  on  the  other,  of  the  efforts  of  skepticism  and  unbelief, 
a  strong  tendency  has  set  in  toward  a  secularization  of  the  whole 
educational  system  of  our  land.  The  idea  of  State  universities, 
wholly  dissevered  from  ecclesiastical  influence,  is  strongly  urged  by 
many  educators,  backed  by  a  large  part  of  both  the  secular  and 
rationalistic  press;  and  the  air  is  full  of  petty  flings  at  what  are 
called  denominational  or  sectarian  colleges.  There  is  a  constant 
clamor,  too,  on  the  part  of  every  faction  of  anti-Christian  scientism, 
for  a  separation  of  scientific  inquiry  from  an  alleged  hindering  influ- 
ence on  free  inquiry  in  these  colleges.  It  is  one  of  the  great,  far- 
reaching  questions  of  our  day,  whether  the  Church  is,  in  the  interest 
of  true  science  and  of  righteousness,  to  retain  control  of  the  higher 
education  which  it  has  given  to  our  land.  If  the  State  is,  through 
secular  universities,  to  have  charge  of  this  education,  fostered  by 
taxation — a  taxation  urged  by  some  even  upon  the  property  devoted 
to  the  work  by  the  benevolence  of  the  Churches — then  we  will  have 
the  principle  pressed,  as  it  is  in  relation  to  the  common  schools,  that 
State  impartiality  as  to  religions  must  exclude  the  Pjible  and  Chris- 
tianity from  being  recognized  as  proper  forces  in  this  education.  Of 
course,  the  classics  of  the  old  paganisms  would  remain  in  the  cur- 
riculum. Vedic  literature  would  cover  the  religions  of  the  East.  But 
the  Text-Book  of  Christianity  would  come  under  ban  of  tliis  fine 
secularism,  which  the  Christian  people  of  this  land  would  be  called 


150  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

on  to  support  through  their  taxes.  So  the  higher  education  would 
be  un-Christianized  in  this  Gospel-created  land.  As  the  final  struggle 
with  this  anti-Christian  and  anti-Church  tendency  comes  on,  it  is 
needful  that  the  Church  not  only  hold  that  fast  which  she  has,  that  no 
man  take  her  crown,  but  strengthen  her  work,  that  her  institutions 
shall  be  in  the  future,  as  they  have  been  in  the  past,  the  most  com  - 
manding,  the  ruling  centre  of  learning  in  the  land.  And  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  if  she  wishes  to  be  true  to  her  historic  character,  or 
to  her  claim  of  representing  the  best  type  of  revived  or  Protestant 
Christianity,  cannot  be  content  simply  to  let  this  work  be  done  by 
others,  or  to  take  anything  short  of  the  fullest  share  that  the  Head 
of  the  Church  has  made  possible  to  her. 

Thirdly.  The  proper  training  of  young  men  for  our  minis- 
try— such  a  culture  as  will  prepare  them  for  their  true  position  and 
efficiency — requires  a  high  standard  for  our  educational  work.  It 
would  be  an  insult  to  any  intelligent  body  of  men  to  raise  before 
them,  at  this  date,  the  question  of  an  educated  ministry.  It  needs 
no  word.  But  the  question  may  well  be  raised  whether  our  Church 
appreciates  what  grade  of  institutions  she  should  furnish  to  supply 
the  education  now  needed.  The  colleges  and  theological  schools 
that  can  rightly  serve  the  Church's  true  strength  and  victory  are 
such  as  shall  be  able  to  set  forth  the  young  ministry  abreast  Avith 
the  most  advanced  results  in  science,  philosophy  and  theological 
inquiry.  This  is  necessary  to  prevent  them  from  becoming  en- 
tangled in  the  misleading  plausibilities  and  errors  of  the  times,  and 
to  fit  them  to  maintain  the  supremacy  of  God's  truth  in  its  incessant 
conflicts.  Even  aside  from  this  ministerial  education,  our  Church's 
prosperity  is  dependent,  more  than  most  persons  think,  on  an  ele- 
vated standard  of  collegiate  education.  -Other  things  being  equal, 
it  is  almost  self-evident,  the  Church  that  educates  the  most  and 
best  and  controls  the  best  institutions  will  outrank  others,  and  do 
most  for  the  cause  of  Christ. 

If  these  principles  be  true,  it  is  easy  to  see  what  position  our 
Church  should  occupy  on  the  subject  we  are  considering.  What, 
now,  are  some  of  the  chief  facts  that  mark  the  educational  work  in 
our  Church,  and  some  of  the  features  open  to  criticism,  and  needing 
revision  ? 

Our  Church  was  slow  in  beginning  this  work.  Were  we  to  count 
from  the  Swedish  Lutheran  settlement  on  the  Delaware  in  1637,  a 


DR.    VALENTINES    ESSAY.  I5I 

century  and  a  half  of  her  history  in  this  country  elapsed  before  any 
successful  movement  to  take  part  in  the  higher  education  was  made. 
But  though  there  had  been  scattering  immigration  of  Lutherans 
from  that  date  onward,  our  Church  can  hardly  be  regarded  as 
having  been  organized  here  before  the  coming  of  the  Germans,  at 
different  dates  from  1 7  f  o  to  1 742.  We  may  justly  count  a  half  cen- 
tury of  our  Church's  history  here  as  passed  when  Franklin  Col- 
lege, at  Lancaster,  the  institution  to  which  I  refer,  was  founded 
in  17S7.  And  this  institution  was  only  one-third  part  under  Lu- 
theran auspices,  and  failed  to  be  permanent.  ■  The  prevalence  of 
the  German  language  in  our  Church  was  in  the  way  of  any  early  suc- 
cess in  establishing  a  college  that  should  rise  to  commanding  posi- 
tion. German  institutions  could  have  only  a  limited  prosperity ; 
and  any  other  our  Church  was  not  prepared  to  found,  until  the 
Lutheran  population  became  largely  Anglicized.  And  when  Penn- 
sylvania College,  our  oldest  college,  was  organized  in  1832,  it  lacked 
only  a  few  years  of  being  two  centuries  after  colleges  under  other 
auspices  had  begun  in  their  work  and  laid  the  foundations  of  a  wide 
prosperity.  As  Hartwick  Seminary,  established  in  1815,  though 
highly  useful,  belongs  to  the  category  of  academic  and  theological 
institutes,  our  college  education,  apart  from  our  share  in  the  insti- 
tution above  named,  has  a  history  of  only  forty-five  years.  During 
this  period  the  progress  has  been  wonderfully  rapid,  testifying  that 
whatever  may  be  the  wisdom  that  guides  the  work,  it  is  urged  for- 
ward by  worthy  and  earnest  interest.  The  latest  statistics  give  us, 
besides  twenty-two  academic  institutes,  a  list  of  eighteen  colleges  or 
institutions  claiming  to  be  such,  under  the  axispices  of  our  Church, 
located  within  a  compass  reaching  from  New  York  around  by  the 
Carolinas,  Texas,  Iowa  and  Wisconsin,  representing  four  different 
languages,  and  cs  many  types  of  Lutheranism.  Li  these  there  are, 
as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained,  2,036  students  under  127  professors. 
Nine  of  the  colleges  may  be  counted  as  English,  with  72  professors 
and  988  students.  Five  are  German,  with  34  professors  and  about 
687  students.  Two  are  Swedish  with  13  professors  and  171  students. 
Two  are  Norwegian,  with  about  200  pupils  under  8  professors. 
These  facts,  its  seems  to  me,  cannot  but  justify  several  criticisms: 
The  first  is  that  there  has  been  a  very  unwise  multiplication  of 
institutions  of  this  class.  To  whatever  causes  it  may  have  been  due, 
whether  to  the  apparent  necessities  of  language,  the  territorial  con- 


152 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


venience  of  location,  the  divisive  action  of  theological  partisanship, 
or  the  obstinate  leading  of  ambitious  individualism,  the  result  is  ap- 
parent, that  the  power  of  our  Church  in  this  branch  of  work,  has 
been  terribly  sacrificed  in  this  multitudinous  planting  of  colleges. 
In  this  respect  the  college  work  in  general,  under  all  the  Christian 
denominations,  and  other  bodies  that  have  established  them,  has 
been   misguided   and    greatly   damaged.      Weakness   rather   than 
strength  has  come  to  it  in  this  way.     If  it  be  claimed  that  this  mul- 
tiplication, by  planting  colleges  in  close  proximity  in  every  section, 
bringing  educational  facilities  to  the  doors  of  the  people  everywhere, 
draws  out  and  educates  more  of  the  young  than  could  otherwise  be 
reached,  it  is  evident,  however,  that  the  widening  of  the  range  has 
been  purchased  at  the  expense  of  its  proper  elevation.     In  its  de- 
pression of  the  average  grade  the  aggregate  loss  has  been  greater 
than  the  gain  by  numbers  on  the  lower  level.     This  principle  more 
than  holds  as  to  the  work  in  our  own  Church.     The  division  of  the 
pecuniary  resources,  and  of  the  patronage,  among  so  many  institu- 
tions, prevents  any  of  them  from  rising  unto  their  true  efficiency, 
prominence,  and  service  to  the  Church.      I  assume  that  all  the 
means,  contributed  from  local,  partisan,  or  personal  considerations, 
should  have  been  given  under  a  wiser  and  better  adjusted  system. 
The  nine  hundred  and  eighty-eight  students  reported  as  in  the  nine 
English  colleges  could  surely  all  be  instructed  mfour.   If  the  endow- 
ment and  patronage  that  now  only  keep  these  nine  in  straitened  and 
hampered  work,  with  professors  loaded  down  with  excessive  labors 
and  little  pay,  and  some  of  the  institutions  almost  in  articulo  mortis, 
were  accumulated  in  four,  the  educational  products  would  unquestion- 
ably be  above  the  present  grade  of  many  of  them,  and  our  college 
work  would  stand  out  in  more  attractive  prominence  than  now.    Our 
institutions  could  be  rightly  built  up,  and  developed  into  commanding 
position  for  the  honor  and  power  of  our  Church.     It  seems  to  me 
to  require  a  microscopic  eye  to  see,  for  instance,  the  wisdom  of  try- 
ing to  carry  on  three  colleges  under  our  Church  in  three  adjoining 
States  of  the  South.     Were  the  efforts  thrown  into  one,  it  could  be 
lifted   into   triumphant  success  and  broad  usefulness.     This  would 
be   far  better  than  the  present  divided  enterprise,  in  which  the 
struggle  of  some  for  existence  is  hindering  the  true  efficiency  of  all. 
In  our  Middle  States,  neither  the  strength  of  the  Church  nor  the 
compass  of  territory  calls  for  more  than  the  first  one  of  our  colleges. 


DR.    VALENTINES    ESSAY.  1 53 

Two  English  colleges,  at  most,  are  sufficient  to  represent  our  Church 
and  do  its  work  in  the  West— one  in  the  nearer  and  the  other  in  the 
remoter  West.  Plainly  it  would  be  gain  both  as  to  vigor  of  educa- 
tional work  and  the  harmony  of  the  Church,  if  we  had  but  a  single 
Swedish  college  combining  the  funds  and  patronage  of  the  present 
two.  The  same  is  evidently  true  as  to  the  Norwegian  education. 
Is  there  any  just  reason,  indeed,  why  Swedish  and  Norwegian  might 
not  be  united  in  the  same  institution,  or  better  still,  form  depart- 
ments in  one  of  the  English  institutions  ?  As  to  the  German  col- 
leges, four  of  them  being  in  the  West,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  the 
division  of  the  efforts  is  not  depriving  the  work  of  its  true  ease  and 
efficient  strength. 

The  correctness  of  this  opinion  is  not  disproved  by  the  admitted 
fact,  that  this  rapid  multiplication  of  our  colleges  has  been  inevita- 
ble from  the  divided  condition  of  the  Church.  It  does  not  better 
the  matter  that  this  weakness  comes  from  another  weakness,  that 
this  crippling  of  our  work  arises  from  our  bad  antagonisms,  that  the 
evil  is  simply  the  symptom  of  a  deeper  evil.  It  does  not  make  this 
system  wise,  that  it  is  the  fruit  and  revelation  of  the  folly  that 
wastes  our  Church's  life  in  alienations  and  strifes.  It  is  no  recom- 
mendation of  it,  that  it  has  been  shaped  by  one  of  the  worst  facts 
that  mar  the  beauty  and  cut  the  sinews  of  our  Lutheran  strength. 

All  the  real  advantage,  by  drawing  out  tlie  young  through  numer- 
ous colleges  easily  accessible,  supposed  by  some  to  justify  this  mul- 
tiplication, can  be  better  attained  through  high  grade,  efficient 
academies  in  every  community.  These  can  be  made  almost  as  nu- 
merous as  our  pastoral  charges,  and  can  furnish,  along  with  a  prep- 
aration for  college,  the  early  inspiration  to  the  advanced  course. 
It  is  just  this  system  of  numerous  local  schools,  that  can  best  quicken 
our  churches  into  more  general  education,  and  send  the  proper 
numbers  on  to  fill  our  college  halls  and  give  our  higher  education 
its  true  encouragement  and  success. 

But  a  second  thing — the  facts  furnished  by  our  statistics  of  col- 
leges, suggest  that  there  is  prevalent  among  us,  as  a  background  of 
much  of  the  evil  I  am  criticising,  a  mistaken  notion  as  to  the  true 
sphere  and  relations  of  the  college.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
list  of  eighteen  cannot  fail  to  reveal  the  fact  that  many  of  them 
stand  for  types  of  theological  thought,  or  have  been  made  to  accept 
the  rivalship  of  a  neighboring  new-born  college  because  of  being 
II 


154 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


unwilling  to  be  contracted  into  some  such  narrowness.  It  is  plain 
that  colleges  have  been  looked  on  much  in  the  light  of  simple  in- 
struments for  success  in  theological  warfare.  They  have  been 
sought  chiefly  as  outposts  to  some  special  "school  of  prophets." 
Now,  if  I  have  rightly  conceived  the  function  and  relation  of  the 
college,  as  the  college  under  auspices  of  the  Lutheran  Church  should 
stand  in  the  great  American  system  of  Christian  higher  education, 
it  is  to  occupy  a  much  wider  and  more  catholic  position.  The  col- 
lege is  not  simply  a  small  Church-school.  It  is  not  a  theological 
seminary.  It  is  not  simply  a  feeder  to  any  one,  nor  to  all.  It  is  for 
that  broader  work  which  shall  give  the  higher  education,  in  its  best 
and  fullest  wealth  of  science,  philosophy,  and  literature,  under 
Christian  auspices,  for  all  the  callings  of  life.  The  college  is,  in- 
deed, to  educate  for  the  theological  seminary.  It  is  a  feature  of 
perhaps  more  worth  than  any  other,  that  it  trains  the  young  of  the 
Church  for  the  great  service  into  which  they  pass  through  our  theo- 
logical schools.  And  just  because  it  is  needed  for  this  great  service, 
as  well  as  for  other,  the  college  must  be  conceded  a  higher  and 
wider  office.  The  young  for  the  ministry  in  our  day  should  enter 
the  theological  course  with  a  discipline  and  culture  in  the  broad 
range  of  scientific  and  philosophical  thought,  such  as  can  be  given 
only  in  institutions  with  a  curriculum  arranged  after  this  full  concep- 
tion of  collegiate  education.  It  is  true  the  pulpit  is  not  to  preach 
science  or  philosophy.  Its  power  to  save  men  is  not  even  through 
the  philosophy  of  the  gospel — but  the  gospel  itself.  But  the  pulpit, 
in  this  age  of  skeptical  scientism  and  misleading  speculation,  will 
lose  its  proper  hold  on  public  confidence,  if  it  is  without  masterful 
knowledge  in  these  pretentious  departments  of  inquiry.  It  must 
never  be  said  that  the  ministry  is  -behind  the  age  on  the  broad 
ground  of  general  and  thorough  education.  The  Church's  col- 
leges, to  give  this  education,  dare  not  be  of  inferior  grade,  or  en- 
close their  students'  course  within  a  range  that  stretches  over  only 
the  ecclesiastical  segment  of  the  horizon  of  knowledge.  The  train- 
ing must  be  broad  and  efficient.  Upon  the  foundation  of  such  an 
education,  a  theological  course  can  build  up,  in  the  Church's  ever- 
lasting truth,  true  sons  of  Issachar,  with  understanding  of  the  times 
and  knowledge  of  what  Israel  ought  to  do. 

If  it  is  thus  indeed,  as  it  seems  to  be,  a  mistake  to  hold  our  col- 
leges to  serve  simply  as  porches  to  particular  schools  of  prophets ; 


DR.    valentine's   ESSAY.  1 55 

if  the  true  idea  into  which  they  should  be  molded  is  that  of  seats 
of  highest  Christian  culture,  affording  the  proper  broad  and 
thorough  preparation  for  the  various  professional  courses,  for  public 
life  or  business,  the  question  is  legitimately  raised  :  What  degree 
of  organic  connection  and  control  ought  the  Church  to  hold  in 
and  over  the  colleges  she  builds  up?  How,  without  making  them 
sectarian,  or  reducing  them  to  the  littleness  of  party  schools,  can  they 
be  made  secure  to  the  service  and  control  of  the  Church,  and  safe 
from  liability  of  perversion  to  secularism  or  infidelity  ?  The  case  of 
Harvard  University,  passing  from  control  of  the  communion  that 
dedicated  it  '^  Chris  to  et  Ecclesice,''  to  a  management  which  has 
used  it  largely  to  discredit  the  faith  it  was  built  to  promote,  is 
known  to  all.  Dickinson  College,  in  this  State,  has  passed  from  un- 
der Presbyterian  auspices  to  Methodist  Episcopal  control.  Meant 
for  this  Christian  service  under  our  Church,  the  surest  possible  safe- 
guards ought  to  be  employed  for  the  permanence  of  our  colleges  in 
this  status.  Important  as  it  is  to  avoid  confounding  the  office  of 
the  college  with  that  of  the  theological  seminary,  and  to  maintain 
its  proper  Christian,  or  at  least  denominational  catholicity,  it  is 
also  of  the  highest  moment  to  have  it  so  guarded,  that  it  cannot 
swing  loose  to  any  unchurchly  perversion,  or  be  wrested  from  the 
control  of  the  Christian  communion  that  founded  it.  No  settled 
principle  on  this  point  has  been  adopted  among  us,  and  the  Church's 
practice  has  been  irregular  and  conflicting.  The  relation  between 
the  college  and  Church  is  varied  through  all  grades  of  control,  from 
the  extremes  of  practical  sy nodical  oivnei-ship  and  management  to  a 
separateness  in  which  there  is  no  organic  Church-relation  whatever. 
If  in  some  cases  the  partisan  ecclesiastical  grip  has  been  so  tight  as 
to  disallow  the  free  life  and  growth  essential  for  the  right  develop- 
ment of  a  Christian  college,  in  its  true  ideal  of  wide  and  compre- 
hensive education,  and  has  illustrated,  in  the  sphere  of  education, 
the  wisdom  of  a  method  that  is  employed  in  forming  Chinese  feet, 
some  have  so  free  a  relation  as,  perhaps,  to  make  additional  guar- 
antees for  the  Church's  permanent  and  best  control  of  them  desir- 
able. The  relation  which  the  Church  should  claim  for  itself,  in 
order  to  assert,  without  transcending,  the  proper  degree  of  control 
in  its  colleges  and  hold  sufficient  guarantees  for  the  future,  is  a  sub- 
ject that  needs  careful  revision  and  settlement  among  us. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact,  and  strikingly  illustrative  of  the  connec- 


156  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

tion  between  educational  work  and  Church  prosperity,  that  this 
period  of  the  rapid  enlargement  of  this  work  has  been  the  period 
of  our  Church's  most  rapid  development  and  progress.  Since  1845, 
when  the  educational  work  through  Hartwick  Seminary,  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary  and  the  College  at  Gettysburg,  and  other  institu- 
tions, was  beginning  to  produce  its  fuller  results  in  the  increase  of 
the  ministry  and  the  quickening  of  the  educational  impulse  which 
afterward  founded  so  many  other  colleges  and  seminaries,  the 
growth  of  the  Church  has  been  greatly  accelerated,  advancing  from 
843  to  5,905  congregations,  and  from  90,629  communicant  mem- 
bers to  the  present  605,340.  It  may,  indeed,  be  justly  claimed  that 
the  enlargement  of  our  educational  enterprise  is,  in  great  degree, 
the  effect  of  our  Church's  growth;  but  probably,  in  larger  measure, 
it  has  been  a  cause  and  agency  for  that  growth.  As  education  has 
been  fostered — and  it  is  a  gratifying  fact  to  be  recorded,  that  some 
of  our  colleges,  despite  the  unwise  multiplication  of  them,  have 
done  a  noble  work  and  risen  to  honorable  distinction  among  the 
best  institutions  of  their  States — this  education  has  given  preparation 
to  the  ministry,  without  which,  so  enlarged  in  numbers,  this  pro- 
gress of  our  Church  would  have  been  impossible.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
a  fact  to  be  remembered  that  the  two  things  go  together,  and  that 
the  period  of  our  Church -growth  has  been  jomed  with  the  period 
of  our  educational  activity. 

II.  In  theological  education  we  reach  a  department  of  our  educa- 
tional work  which  is  determined  by  different  aims,  and  must  be 
judged  of  by  different  standards.  As  a  rule,  I  conceive,  this  be- 
gins properly  only  after  the  collegiate  course,  or  its  equivalent,  has 
laid  the  proper  cultural  basis  for  it.  The  deviations  from  this  rule 
ought  to  be  more  strictly  exceptional  than  they  have  been  among 
us,  for  the  sake  of  both  the  theological  course  itself  and  the  student 
and  the  Church.  This  brings  up  at  once  a  fact  that  calls  for  a  new 
departure.  Whatever  reasons  may,  in  the  past,  have  justified  a  large 
application  of  the  principle  of  exceptions  to  the  rule  in  question, 
the  character  of  the  times  into  which  Ave  have  come,  require,  and 
the  resources  of  the  Church  now  admit,  a  more  stringent  enforce- 
ment of  the  higher  standard  for  entrance  into  our  theological 
schools.  Honorable  as  has  been  the  general  culture  of  our  minis- 
try, surely  comparing  favorably  with  that  of  the  ministry  of  Churches 
around  us,  and  blessed  with  divine  power  as  have  been  the  labors 


DR.    VALENTINES    ESSAY.  1 57 

of  many  who  have  entered  the  service  with  only  an  inferior  c<i:i(:a- 
tion,  we  have  plainly  reached  a  point  at  which  we  may,  and  should, 
make  an  advance  movement  and  approach  nearer  to  the  high  stand- 
ard which,  I  think,  has  always  been  the  prospective  ideal  of  the 
Church.'' 

The  true  aim  of  theological  education  is  more  peculiar  than  is 
generally  thought.  It  is  not  only  to  be  contrasted  with  collegiate 
training,  furnishing  general  intellectual  culture  under  Christian 
auspices,  by  being  a  professional  course  for  the  acquisition  of  some 
full-orbed  system  of  divinity ;  but  it  means,  largely,  the  deep  cul- 
tivation of  piety,  and  the  kindling  of  soul  into  the  earnestness  of  a 
full  consecration  to  the  appointed  work.  The  ministry  is  not  sim- 
ply a  profession — rather,  is  not  a  profession,  or  craft,  at  all — but  a 
great  divine  service.  A.nd  so,  our  theological  schools  are  not  like 
schools  of  law  or  medicine,  which  give  the  knowledge  of  some  pro- 
fessional art  or  activity  as  a  means  of  support  or  honorable  distinc- 
tion; but  they  are  meant,  while  holding  the  student  above  such 
simply  professional  conception  of  the  office  to  which  he  is  looking, 
to  fill  his  mind,  through  the  Holy  Spirit's  blessing  on  the  instruc- 
tion, with  the  living  truth  of  the  gospel  and  an  inspiration  to  self- 
sacrificing  usefulness.  It  is  a  place  where,  pre-eminently,  he  is  to 
be  endued  with  power  from  on  high,  before  going  forth  to  the  holy 
work.  He  is  to  be  kindled  into  glowing  fervor  by  the  truth  he  re- 
ceives there  in  its  theological  completeness,  as  the  necessary  prepa- 
ration for  kindling  the  souls  of  others  with  the  truth  and  power  of 
salvation. 

Our  theological  institutions  have  been  founded,  I  believe,  in  this 
true  conception  of  their  work.  The  limit  of  time  for  this  paper  for- 
bids any  attempt  to  trace,  historically,  the  earlier  methods  of  train- 
ing our  pastors,  and  the  facts  connected  with  the  establishment  of 
our  theological  seminaries.  The  facts  are  full  of  interest,  but  we 
can  note  them  only  as  they  apppear  in  the  results  now  reached. 

2  At   the  first  meeting  of  the   General  Synod,  1821,  five  years  before  the 

establishment  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Gettysburg,  it  was  resolved  : 
•'  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  several  Synods,  to  admit,  for  the  present, 
no  young  man  to  the  study  of  theology,  before  he  has  obtained  a  diploma,  or 
some  similar  testimonial,  from  a  public  institution,  wherein  the  usual  branches 
of  science  are  taught;  or  before  he  has  been  examined  in  such  branches,  aud 
found  sufficiently  qualified,  by  a  committee  appointed  for  the  purpose." 


158  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

The  earliest  founded  of  our  theological  schools  was  Hartwick  Sem- 
inary, for  which  provision  was  made  by  the  will  of  Rev.  John  C. 
Hartwig  in  1796,  but  Avhich  went  into  operation  only  in  1815.  -^^ 
1826  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  General  Synod  was  established 
at  Gettysburg.  Since  that  time,  enterprise  in  this  direction  has 
been  exceedingly  active;  and  leaving  out  of  count  several  abort- 
ive and  dead  efforts,  fifteen  others  have  been  added  to  the  list.  In 
these  seventeen  seminaries  or  theological  departments,  there  are,  as 
nearly  as  the  statistics  show,  forty-one  professors,  and  four  hundred 
and  ninety-seven  students.  Five  of  them,  with  eleven  professors 
and  eighty-two  students,  are  connected  with  the  General  Synod 
North ;  two  with  three  professors  and  thirteen  students  with  the 
General  Synod  South.  Two,  with  eight  professors  and  sixty-two 
students,  are  connected  with  the  General  CounciP ;  and  four  in  which 
eleven  professors  teach  one  hundred  and  ninety-five  students,  with 
the  Synodical  Conference.  The  rest  are  connected  with  independ- 
,ent  Synods. 

Abundant  testimony  to  the  great  value  and  efficiency  of  these  insti- 
tutions is  furnished  in  the  large  number  of  well  instructed  and  earnest 
ministers  they  are  annually  giving  to  the  work  of  the  Church.  The 
enlarged  and  comprehensive  curriculum  of  three  years,  adopted  by 
a  number  of  them,  and  insisted  on  with  increased  rigor,  is  auspicious 
for  still  augmented  efficiency  of  service.  The  division  of  labor  also, 
through  an  increase  of  our  theological  faculties,  is  adding  strength 
to  these  seminaries.  However,  it  seems  to  me  plain  here,  as  with 
our  colleges,  that  there  has  been  an  unwise  multiplication  of  these 
institutions.  Blessed  as  has  been  the  service  rendered  to  the  Church 
by  our  theological  education,  greater  and  better  things  had  been 
and  still  are  possible  to  us  under-  a  policy  less  divisive  of  effort  and 
more  concentrative  of  our  resources.  It  is  not  my  business  here  to 
point  out  particular  cases  in  which  this  divisive  and  weakening  ac- 
tion has  taken  place,  or  to  arraign  the  propriety  of  the  existence  and 
work  of  any  special  institution.  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood 
as  not  undertaking  to  do  this.  But  it  is  permitted  me  to  deal  with 
the  general  principle  or  policy  pursued,  and  this  policy,  whatever 

3  Wartburg  Seminary,  at  Mendota,  111.,  in  connection  with  the  Synod  of 
Iowa,  and  the  Practical  Theological  Seminary  at  Marshal,  Wis.,  under  the 
Norwegian-Danish  Augustana  Synod,  are  not  included  here,  because  these 
Synods  are  not  in  full  connection  with  the  General  Council. 


DR.    VALENTINES    ESSAY.  I  59 

may  have  been  the  causes  that  led  to  it,  may,  it  seems  to  me,  be 
justly  arraigned  as  misguided,  on  several  grounds. 

It  is  violative,  for  instance,  of  a  wise  and  true  principle  of  econ- 
omy, both  as  to  men  and  means.  This  multiplication  of  seminaries 
greatly  increases  the  amount  of  endowment,  or  direct  contributions, 
necessary  to  meet  their  expenses  and  support  the  professors — if  in- 
deed they  are  supported.  It  consumes  the  time  and  energies  of 
more  men  in  professorial  labor  than  would  be  called  for  under  a 
system  of  wise  combination  of  work.  It  is  an  unwise  demand  on 
the  resources  of  the  Church.  Further,  it  prevents  the  best  breadth 
and  thoroughness  of  our  theological  education,  in  necessarily  keep- 
ing the  teaching  force  in  each  institution  smaller,  and  their  labor 
larger,  than  they  should  be.  But  the  greatest  evil  of  all  appears  in 
the  doctrinal  disharmony  and  misunderstandings  which  they  keep  up 
and  intensify  in  the  Church.  The  seventeen  schools  we  have  repre- 
sent and  foster  at  least  half  a  dozen  types  of  what  is  claimed  to  be 
Lutheran  Theology ;  and  varieties  of  these  are  shaded  out,  some 
places,  into  minuter  diversities.  Even  within  the  schools  connected 
with  the  same  general  Lutheran  organization,  divergences  occur. 
The  carrying  on  of  our  theological  education  in  so  many  institutions 
which  are  led,  by  their  rivalries  and  jealousies,  to  magnify  their  typi- 
cal differences  and  overlook  the  points  of  their  agreement,  empha- 
sizing all  the  divisive  peculiarities  on  which  partisanship  feeds  and 
grows,  training,  it  may  be,  and  inspiring  skilled  polemics  rather 
than  earnest  servants  of  Christ  and  His  truth,  and  sending  them 
forth  prepared  to  misconceive  and  misinterpret,  but  not  to  trust 
and  love  one  another — this  is  something,  it  seems  to  me,  that 
requires  us  to  put  a  clear  seal  of  condemnation  upon  this  policy. 
It  may  be  that,  with  the  various  nationalities  in  our  Church,  and 
otherwise  divided  as  we  have  unfortunately  been — though  not  more 
than  some  other  denominations — the  course  pursued  was  unavoid- 
able. If  so,  it  becomes  a  revelation  of  a  sadly  abnormal  condition 
of  our  Church  life  and  consciousness,  and  only  shows  what  a  severely 
condemnatory  judgment  we  should  put  on  the  distractions  and  divi- 
sions, into  which  a  noble  love  of  the  truth  has  led  us,  through  un- 
wise methods  of  defending  it.  It  may  be  that  the  error  is  now 
incapable  of  correction.  The  work  of  the  past  cannot,  perhaps,  be 
undone.  But  a  wise  economy,  and  the  harmony  and  strength  of  the 
Church,  require  that  it  be  pursued  no  further.     It  may  be,  that  the 


l6o  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  will  have  to  bring  the  only  possible 
solution  of  the  difficulties  created  by  what  has  been  already  done  ; 
but,  possibly,  wise  counsels  and  Christian  love  may  yet  bring  into 
unity  some  of  our  divided  theological  educational  work.  Much 
better  would  it  be  if  we  could  combine  this  work  into,  at  most,  one- 
half  the  number  of  our  present  centres  of  theological  training,  with 
the  enlarged  funds,  faculties,  and  Ubraries,  such  united  effort  would 
make  possible. 

I  am  reluctantly  compelled  to  omit  any  discussion  of  the  education 
of  the  daughters  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  close  connection  of  this 
education  with  the  Church's  best  growth  and  prosperity.  Our  his- 
tory is  not  without  honorable  records  of  worthy,  earnest  and  self- 
sacrificing  effort  in  this  direction.  We  have  had,  and  have  now, 
men  and  institutions  laboring  in  this  way,  with  honor  and  advant- 
age to  the  Church,  if  not  with  pecuniary  success  to  themselves ;  the 
fruits  of  whose  services  it  would  be  a  grateful  task  to  recall.  It  is 
enough  to  point  to  such  schools  as  Lutherville  Seminary,  Hagers- 
town  Seminary,  Staunton  Female  Seminary,  Marion  Female  Col- 
lege, etc.  The  results  of  effort  in  this  direction,  though  not  all  that 
have  been  desired,  are  abundantly  worth  all  the  sacrifice  made. 
It  needs  only  be  added,  that  thorough  culture  in  the  daughters, 
wives  and  mothers  of  a  Christian  communion,  touches  so  directly 
and  with  such  decisive  power  upon  its  whole  social  standing,  intel- 
ligent religious  activity,  efficient  service,  and  general  influence,  that 
it  justly  claims  increased  attention  and  more  earnest  encouragement 
among  us. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  C.  A.  STORK,  D.  D.  {General  Synod.) 
I  am  glad  the  paper  just  read  touched  on  one  point  in  the  interest 
of  the  Higher  Education,  viz. :  The  need  of  more  and  more  effi- 
cient academic  or  preparatory  schools  scattered  broadcast  through- 
out the  land.  But  I  wish  to  dwell  on  that  point  more  fully.  It 
ought  to  be  brought  out. 

It  is  obvious  I  think  to  all  who  are  interested  in  the  question  of 
the  Higher  Education,  and  who  have  studied  the  subject  at  all,  that 
the  drift  of  the  age  is  away  from  scholarship.  Our  statistical  tables 
show  that  relatively  fewer  of  our  young  men  pursue  a  full  collegiate 
course  than  in  the  beginning  of  the  century.     Absolutely,  of  course. 


DISCUSSION.  I  6  I 

there  are  more  that  are  college-bred ;  but  relatively  there  are  fewer. 
The  scholar  is  not  as  great  as  he  used  to  be.  The  influence  and 
admiration  and  power  that  he  commands  are  not  the  same.  The 
reason  for  this  I  think  is  very  obvious ;  it  is  to  be  found  in 
the  spirit  of  the  age.  We  know  what  the  age  is;  what  its  drift  is  ; 
it  is  almost  wholly  in  the  direction  of  material  interests.  Investiga- 
tion is  turned  to  the  searching  out  of  material  problems,  and  the 
activities  of  the  age,  its  hopes  and  enthusiasm,  are  to  the  furtherance 
of  material  prosperity.  So  our  young  men  grow  up  in  an  atmos- 
phere, and  launch  out  into  a  current  that  are  all  for  material  inter- 
ests. The  promises  of  life  are  not  as  they  once  were,  in  large  meas- 
ure for  the  scholar,  the  thinker;  they  are  for  the  active  man,  the 
speculator,  the  organizer  of  capital,  the  man  strong  to  manage 
trade.  All  this  sets  the  current  of  young  ambition  and  aspiration 
away  from  the  university,  the  quiet  life  of  meditation,  and  slow 
study. 

What  is  the  corrective  for  this  ?  Not,  I  think,  at  this  time,  more 
colleges  or  better  colleges  ;  not  a  grander  and  richer  university. 
Those,  whatever  they  may  be,  are  remote  from  the  life  of  the  day; 
they  are  secluded  from  the  rush  and  tide  that  catches  the  young  man 
and  whirls  him  away.  What  is  needed  now,  it  seems  to  us,  is  a  sys- 
tem of  academies  which,  bringing  the  allurements  of  learning,  of  the 
studious  atmosphere,  to  the  homes  of  the  young,  shall  give  them  a 
taste  for  letters,  for  thought,  and  direct  their  attention  to  the  world 
of  better  and  higher  things  that  exists  for  them. 

And  to  do  this  is  the  work  of  the  Church.  She  has  always  been 
the  fosterer  of  the  Higher  Education.  She  planted  our  colleges  and 
universities.  Now  she  must  see  to  opening  rills  that  shall  feed  them. 
The  State  cannot  do  it ;  the  State  never  will  do  it.  Now  in  the 
Providence  of  God,  it  seems  as  if  that  office  of  nurse  of  letters 
which  she  once  filled,  and  men  have  thought  she  could  fill  no  longer, 
is  once  more  offered  her. 

If  in  all  our  country   towns  we  could,  under   the  fostering  care 


1 62 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


of  our  Synods  and  Conferences,  establish  academies  and  higher 
schools,  we  should  be  doing  the  greatest  work  for  the  interests  of 
the  Higher  Education, 

Let  me  say,  too,  that  we  as  a  Church  have  especial  need  of  some 
agency  that  will  bring  a  higher  education  to  our  laity.  There  is  a 
greater  gulf  in  this  matter  of  education,  between  the  body  of  our 
people  and  the  clergy  than  exists  in  most  of  the  great  denomina- 
tions. Our  ministers  are  as  well  educated  as  those  of  any  conspicu- 
ous Christian  body;  but  with  the  laity  it  is  otherwise.  This  makes 
a  gap  between  the  pulpit  and  the  pews.  Some  may  like  to  see  that 
difference ;  it  may  flatter  their  pride  to  feel  that  they  are  more 
cultured  than  any  of  their  flock.  I  am  not  one  of  those.  I  could 
wish  that  the  people  might  have  knowledge.  I  rejoice  to  see  men 
and  women  in  my  congregation,  my  peers  in  culture  and  knowledge. 
It  would  be  good  for  us  all,  and  good  for  the  Church's  work,  if  the 
minister  felt  that  there  were  before  him  those  who  knew  more  about 
many  points  of  a  generous  culture  than  he  did. 

And  to  the  academy  preparing  the  way  to  the  college  and  the 
university — to  the  academy  founded  throughout  our  country  dis- 
tricts and  fostered  by  the  Church — do  I  think  we  must  look  for 
help  in  this  matter. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  further  discussion  was 
postponed  until  the  next  morning  at  9  o'clock. 

Dr.  Seiss  stated  that  a  press  of  duties  had  prevented  Rev.  Dr.  Re- 
pass, of  Virginia,  both  from  attending  the  Diet  and  from  preparing 
his  paper.  There  would,  therefore,  be  a  vacancy  in  the  programme 
for  to-morrow  morning.  It  was  unfortunate  that  the  laity  had  been 
overlooked  in  selecting  essayists  for  the  Diet.  There  was,  however, 
a  layman  present,  a  member  of  the  family  of  the  great  Reformer, 
who  had  prepared  a  paper  on  the  Linguistic  Relations  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church  in  this  country.  He  moved  that  the  vacant  place  be 
assigned  Dr.  Diller  Luther,  of  Reading,  Pa. 

Adopted. 


FOURTH    SESSION. 


December  28th,  9  a.  m. 
Prayer  by  Rev.  W.  K.  Frick,  of  Philadelphia.     The  discussion  of 
Dr.  Valentine's  paper  was  resumed. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  F.  REINMUND,  D.  D.  {General  Synod.) 
The  Common  Schools  sustain  an  important  relation  to  the  higher 
education,  which  can  and  should  be  utilized  for  the  prosperity  and 
success  of  colleges.  These  public  schools  ought  to  have  the  encour- 
agement and  influence  of  the  ministry  for  their  proper  direction  and 
efficiency.  They  offer  excellent  opportunities  for  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  to  get  into  contact  with  the  minds  of  the  young,  to  turn 
their  attention  to  collegiate  education,  and  to  encourage  them  to 
secure  it.  His  own  experience  had  satisfied  him  that  much  could 
be  done  in  this  way.  The  public  and  high  schools  have  made  it 
difficult  to  sustain  efficient  academies;  and  in  the  present  relations 
of  education  in  our  country,  the  most  available  way,  perhaps,  of 
promoting  the  higher  Christian  education  in  our  Church,  is  for  the 
ministry  to  use  the  opportunities  open  to  them  to  encourage  and 
influence  education  through  these  schools. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  A.  SPAETH,  D.  D.  {General  Council.) 
I  would  not  like  to  underrate  the  importance  of  theological  and 
collegiate  education  in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country,  but  I 
am  convinced  that  in  order  to  do  justice  to  our  duty  on  the  field  of 
education,  we  must  begin  to  lay  the  foundations  deeper  in  the  relig 
ious  instruction  of  the  home  circle  and  the  congregational  school. 
1%  other  Church  possesses  a  treasure  equal  to  our  own  ''Catechism," 
written  for  this  very  purpose,  that  the  head  of  the  family  should 
teach  it  to  his  household,  and  that  the  pastors  and  teachers  should 
use  it  to  instruct  the  young.     The  year  1S45  ^^-^  been  mentioned  as 

(163) 


164  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

marking  the  beginning  of  an  increased  activity  and  success  on  the 
field  of  education  within  our  Church.  I  have  no  doubt  tliat  this  date  is 
correctly  given.  But  if  I  am  not  very  much  mistaken,  the  real  cause 
of  this  remarkable  increase  since  that  time,  is  the  fact,  that  from  that 
time  on,  the  German  Lutherans  in  the  West,  especially  our  Missouri 
brethren,  who  have  been  the  chief  instrument  to  save  the  great  West 
for  the  Lutheran  Church,  commenced  their  work.  They  not  only 
preached  the  Gospel  in  the  pulpit,  but  gathered  the  lambs  into  the 
folds  of  the  parochial  schools,  the  pastor  himself  serving  as  the 
teacher  in  the  parish  school,  if  no  other  suitable  man  could  be  found. 
This  is  the  duty  we  owe  to  our  Church,  to  the  faith  of  our  fathers. 
It  is  all  the  more  our  duty  as  we  stand  comparatively  isolated  be- 
tween Romanism  on  the  one  side  and  the  Protestantism  of  the 
Reformed  type  on  the  other  side. 

[NOTE  FROM  DR.  VALENTINE.] 
Owing  to  an  unintentional  oversight  of  the  Chair,  the  opportu- 
nity of  closing  the  discussion  on  this  paper  was  not  given  to  the 
author.  It  was  his  purpose  to  add  a  few  words  on  several  points 
referred  to  in  the  discussion.  First,  that  the  subject  of  the  earlier 
education  of  the  children,  justly  held  to  be  so  important,  had  not 
been  touched  on  in  the  paper,  because  it  formed  the  topic  of  another 
paper  for  the  Diet.  Secondly,  that  the  Public  School  was  available 
for  the  purposes  of  our  Church  Education  only  in  exceptional  cases  ; 
and  that  classical  instruction,  to  fit  students  for  college,  was  probably 
in  excess  of  what  rightly  belonged  to  the  Public  School  system. 

The  sixth  paper  was  then  read. 


THE  INTERESTS  OF  THE.  LUTHE:RAN  CHURCH  IN 

AMERICA  AS  AFFECTED  BY  DIVERSITIES 

OF  LANGUAGE. 


I 


BY    DILLER   LUTHER,    M.    D.,    READING,    PA. 

PROPOSE  some  thoughts  and  reflections  on  the  subject  of  the 
interests  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  as  affected  by 
diversities  of  Language.  It  is  my  intention  to  content  myself  with  a 
mere  outhne,  believing  that  such  general  observations  as  all  will  ad- 
mit to  be  correct,  will  of  themselves  be  sufficiently  suggestive  of  the 
proper  conclusions,  without  any  argument  to  establish  them. 

The  Protestant  Reformation  had  its  origin  on  German  soil.  It 
was  in  Germany,  where  the  seeds  of  religious  liberty  were  first 
planted  and  took  root ;  it  was  there,  where  the  rights  of  conscience 
were  boldly  and  fearlessly  advocated  and  maintained.  The  struggle 
to  recover  the  pure  doctrines  of  God's  Holy  Word,  for  so  many 
years  hidden  under  the  corruptions  of  the  Roman  Hierarchy,  was 
commenced  and  successfully  conducted  there.  They  were  held  and 
defended,  in  defiance  of  papal  bulls,  of  arbitrary  edicts  by  the  civil 
powers,  and  amid  such  persecution  and  cruelties  as  have  scarcely 
had  a  parallel  in  history.  No  sacrifice  was  deemed  too  great,  to  pro- 
tect them  against  the  opposition  and  destruction,  with  which  they 
were  constantly  threatened.  Country,  home,  property  and  life  it- 
self, would  be  surrendered  if  occasion  demanded.  History  may  be 
searched  in  vain,  from  the  earliest  period  down  to  the  present  time, 
for  an  example  of  a  more  inflexible  adherence  to  truth  and  principle, 
than  was  exhibited  in  this  great  contest. 

The  struggle  to  maintain  the  Protestant  doctrines  was  soon  fol- 
lowed by  religious  wars  The  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  took 
place  in  France  in  15  72.  In  1598  was  published  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
granting  equal  rights  to  Protestants.  In  1685  this  Edict  was  re- 
voked, and  Protestants  were  again  persecuted  in  France.  Children 
at  the  age  of  seven  years,  by  apostatizing,  were  declared  independ- 
ent of  their  parents  ;  military  executions  were  employed  to  enforce 

(165) 


1 66  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

uniformity  of  worship ;  Protestant  marriages  were  declared  illegal, 
and  their  offspring  illegitimate.  Hereupon  15,000  persons  fled  to 
Hamburg  and  Amsterdam  in  Holland ;  and  in  the  five  years  follow- 
ing, no  less  than  1,000,000  fled  to  Holland,  England  and  America 
— for  William  Penn,  in  1682,  had  already  colonized  Pennsylvania. 
The  tide  of  German  emigration  set  rapidly  towards  our  shores. 
Settlements  upon  the  Hudson  river  in  New  York  were  first  made, 
but  preferring  the  liberal  spirit  of  the  Penn  government,  the- emi- 
grants directed  their  steps  towards  the  fertile  valleys  of  our  Com- 
monwealth. The  lands  in  many  sections  of  the  Colony  were  soon 
occupied.  With  their  practical  knowledge  as  farmers  and  proverbial 
habits  of  industry,  the  soil  was  made  to  yield  abundant  crops.  They 
built  comfortable  homes,  enclosed  their  farms  and  erected  the  neces- 
sary farm  buildings ;  neighborhoods  and  villages  rapidly  grew  up — 
the  mill,  the  store  and  mechanics'  shops  soon  followed,  and  gave 
evidences  of  prosperity.  Then  came  the  school  and  the  church. 
A  lot  sufficiently  large  for  the  church,  the  school  and  the  parsonage, 
was  selected  in  an  eligible  location.  With  the  aid  and  means  of  all, 
each  one  ready  and  willing  to  contribute  to  the  work,  the  walls  of 
the  stately  edifice  were  rapidly  reared ;  the  spire  pointing  heaven- 
ward, was  added  to  give  it  grace  and  dignity;  with  the  altar,  organ, 
and  pews,  all  arranged  in  the  approved  style  of  that  day,  the  whole 
in  a  short  time  was  made  ready  for  occupation.  The  school  and 
parsonage  soon  followed.  Church  after  church  was  thus  erected  in 
the  valleys  of  which  the  Germans  had  become  inhabitants,  some  of 
which  may  be  seen  to  this  day. 

At  the  early  period  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  the  services  of 
the  Lutheran  Churches  were  conducted  in  the  German  language 
only ;  the  settlements  being  entirely  German,  there  was  no  neces- 
sity for  any  other.  Indeed,  in  many  of  the  original  charters,  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  that  language  was  made  obligatory,  which  in  many 
instances  continues  to  be  literally  observed  to  this  day.  For  a  time — 
it  may  be  said  for  a  long  time — these  churches  prospered ;  they  be- 
came strong  in  numbers  and  in  influence.  The  early  ministers 
being  generally  foreigners,  received  their  theological  training  in  the 
schools  of  Europe,  and  were  pious  and  learned.  A  necessary  part 
of  the  general  system  then  in  use,  was  to  train  the  young  inside,  in- 
stead of  outside  the  Church  as  now  pursued — a  departure  of  modern 
times  which  is  by  no  means  universally  admitted  to  bewise.     The 


DR.  luthek's  essay.  167 

parsonage,  with  a  sufficient  number  of  acres  surrounding  it  to  pro- 
duce the  needed  supplies,  completed  the  Church  arrangement. 

I  now  pass  to  another  period  in  the  history  of  the  early  Lutheran 
churches  in  this  country.  As  neighborhoods  became  more  densely 
settled  and  the  population  more  mixed,  the  English  language  be- 
came a  barrier  to  the  continued  prosperity  of  the  German  churches. 
The  educational  institutions,  the  business  of  Legislative  bodies,  of 
Courts,  and  of  ordinary  trade,  were  conducted  in  the  national  lan- 
guage. English  churches  were  established  and  became  prosperous. 
The  inclination  to  follow  the  popular  current  on  the  part  of  the 
young  could  not  be  restrained.  The  fathers  were  content  with  the 
Church  as  they  had  established  it ;  they  remonstrated  and  en- 
deavored to  resist,  but  could  not  prevent  a  continued  outgoing  into 
the  English  Churches.  An  effective  remedy  could  have  been  found 
in  the  introduction  of  the  English  language  into  the  Lutheran 
churches,  but  that  was  neither  countenanced  nor  sanctioned.  The 
consequences  which  followed  are  known  to  all.  Failing  to  provide 
for  the  young,  the  churches  declined  and  in  very  many  instances 
with  all  the  membership  passed  out  of  existence. 

The  policy  of  our  ancestors  in  this  respect,  has  been  variously 
criticised.  From  one  standpoint,  it  is  unsparingly  denounced  and 
condemned.  From  another,  it  is  defended  and  admired.  The  ten- 
acity with  which  they  adhered  to  the  exclusive  use  of  one  language, 
is  commended  by  some,  as  significant  of  a  deep-seated  love  for  the 
Church,  for  which  such  sacrifices  had  been  endured.  By  others,  it  is 
regarded  as  nothing  more  nor  less  than  Teutonic  perversity,  an  ob- 
stinate blindness  and  unwillingness  to  conform  to  new  relations,  by 
which  great  interests  may  be  protected  and  saved,  simply  because 
the  means  to  be  used  do  not  accord  with  long-cherished  prejudices 
and  mistaken  tastes. 

But  the  conduct  of  our  fathers,  if  not  altogether  wise,  w:xs  at  least 
reasonable  and  natural.  For  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  then  organ- 
ized and  conducted,  they  had  suffered  much.  They  had  forsaken 
country  and  home,  to  enjoy  it  in  a  foreign  land  free  from  molesta- 
tion from  any  one.  It  was  a  German  Church,  German  in  its  ori- 
gin, in  its  traditions  and  broad  liberal  spirit.  The  desire  naturally 
would  be  to  transplant  it  to  this  country,  precisely  as  it  existed  at 
the  home  they  had  left,  not  only  in  language  but  in  all  other  partic- 
ulars.    The  Church  must  be  German  here,  because   it  was  German 


1 


1 68  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

there.  For  the  doctrine  of  change  to  conform  to  new  conditions, 
the  true  German  has  little  respect,  especially  in  matters  pertaining 
to  the  Christian  Church.  To  require  him  to  agree  to  a  change  of 
language  in  the  Church,  was  tantamount  to  a  surrender  of  all  he  held 
dear.  It  was  like  a  transfer  not  only  of  title,  but  of  possession,  in 
an  estate  which  he  considered  peculiarly  his  own. 

That  the  policy  pursued  by  our  ancestors,  with  reference  to  the 
question  we  have  been  considering,  though  influenced  by  the  views 
and  feelings  just  presented,  was  a  mistaken  one,  is  obvious  from  the 
deplorable  consequences  which  followed.  It  was  as  wrong  in  the- 
ory, as  it  was  injurious  in  practice  .The  attempt  to  confine  it  to  one 
tongue  and  one  nationality,  was  an  insult  to  its  great  founders  and 
entirely  at  variance  with  the  broad  spirit  upon  which  it  was  estab- 
lished. The  basis  upon  which  it  was  reared,  was  sufficiently  broad 
and  comprehensive  for  the  whole  Protestant  Church.  Such  was  not 
the  spirit  of  Muhlenberg.  He  taught  in  three  languages.  It  was 
not  the  spirit  of  Kunze  at  New  York,  who  wept  at  seeing  the  out- 
flow from  his  own  church  into  those  of  other  denominations.  It 
was  not  the  spirit  of  their  co-laborers  at  other  central  points,  for 
they  saw  the  inevitable  consequences  which  must  occur  from  the 
failure  to  provide  for  the  young  in  our  own  churches. 

When  we  consider  the  injury  which  has  been  inflicted  upon  the 
Church  by  the  course  pursued,  we  cannot  refrain  from  congratulat- 
ing ourselves  that  the  conflict  on  the  question  of  language,  has  in 
a  great  measure  ceased.  It  would  be  an  anomaly  at  the  present  day, 
for  ministers  to  insist  that  English-speaking  families  should  learn  the 
German  language,  in  ordei:  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  introducing 
English  services  into  the  Church.  How  generally  this  course  was 
pursued,  especially  in  the  larger  cities  and  towns,  to  their  great  in- 
jury and  in  some  instances  to  their  ruin,  is  well  known.  For  years 
under  the  ministers  who  had  charge  of  our  churches,  and  who  were 
capable  of  speaking  in  one  language  only,  the  policy  was  one  of  un- 
yielding opposition  to  the  use  of  the  English  language,  the  sad  con- 
sequences of  which  may  be  seen  in  every  city  and  town  in  our  State. 

The  question  must  now  be  briefly  considered,  whether  the  Church 
is  fully  relieved  of  the  injury  caused  by  the  conflict  of  languages. 
It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  opposition  to  the  use  of  the  English 
language  in  the  Lutheran  churches,  has  in  a  great  measure  ceased. 
English    Lutheran  churches    have    greatly  multiplied  and    grown 


DR.  Luther's  essay.  169 

strong ;  German  churches  have  also  greatly  increased  and  prospered. 
But  why  this  continued  jealousy  and  hostility?  Why  this  never  end- 
ing and  bitter  controversy  with  which  our  weekly  and  monthly  pub- 
lications are  so  filled?  Why  these  numerous  divisions,  these  rival 
institututions  and  agencies,  to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  Church  ? 
You  may  cry  peace,  peace,  but  there  is  no  peace ;  the  corroding 
ulcer,  though  cicatrized,  is  not  healed.  It  still  remains  to  fret  and 
worry.  The  disease  is  not  cured,  but  masked  ;  it  continues,  but  in 
a  different  form.  For  upwards  of  one  hundred  years,  has  the  Church 
in  this  country  bled  and  suffered  from  it;  for  all  that  long  time,  has 
it  been  agitated,  distracted  and  divided. 

And  now  I  approach  a  point  where  I  would  tread  cautiously.  Is 
it  indeed  true  that  no  adequate  remedy  can  be  found  for  the  relief 
of  the  Church  from  these  festering  sores  ?  Are  we  never  to  see  the 
dawn  of  that  day,  when  the  different  branches  of  the  firstborn  of  the 
Reformation  will  be  at  peace  with  each  other?  when  they  will  unite 
and  co-operate  in  the  important  work  committed  to  them?  Are  the 
elements,  of  which  the  different  divisions  are  composed,  so  discord- 
ant and  incongruous  as  to  render  any  efforts  to  harmonize  them 
entirely  futile? 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  results  of  past  efforts  in  this  direc- 
tion do  not  warrant  any  very  sanguine  hopes  of  success  in  the 
future.  And  yet  we  need  not  despair.  The  experience  of  the  past 
merely  shows,  if  it  shows  anything,  that  the  methods  chosen  were 
not  adapted  to  secure  the  desired  object.  Peace  and  harmony  are 
not  to  be  obtained  by  Synodical  resolutions.  Nor  are  the  members 
composing  ecclesiastical  bodies,  to  be  forever  kept  separate  by  a 
parliamentary  ruling,  though  it  be  influenced  by  a  regard  for  the 
rights  of  a  party.  The  trouble  is  deep  seated,  and  requires  for  its 
treatment  remedies  of  a  radical  character  —palliatives  have  been  tried 
without  effect — nothing  short  of  the  knife  of  the  surgeon  will  remove 
the  corroding  canker.  And  what,  it  will  now  be  asked,  is  that  remedy? 
I  answer,  it  is  simple,  it  is  radical,  and  in  a  larger  measure  than  can 
possibly  be  realized  from  any  other,  will  be  effective.  It  is  separation. 
It  is  based  upon  the  experience  of  the  past,  which  teaches  the  lesson 
unmistakably,  that  the  interests  of  the  Lutlieran  Church  in  this  coun- 
try, cannot  be  successfully  secured  on  the  union  principle.  It  has 
been  tried  in  churches  and  failed  ;  in  our  educational  institutions  and 
various  church  agencies  and  enterprises,  it  has  met  with  no  better 
12 


1/0  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

success ;  but  has  always  resulted  in  the  witlidrawal  of  one  or  the 
other  party,  and  the  organization  of  separate  establishments.  In 
separation,  then,  to  a  certain  extent  and  in  a  definite  way,  is  to  be 
found  the  peace  which  we  seek.  Separate  churches,  separate  Synods 
and  separate  agencies  and  educational  institutions,  but  one  in  the 
essential  doctrines  in  the  Church,  one  in  the  forms  of  worship  and 
one  in  general  aim  and  purpose.  To  a  large  extent  this  separation 
has  already  been  established,  and  the  only  reason  why  the  trouble  is 
not  entirely  eradicated,  is  that  both  the  German  and  the  English  par- 
ties continue  to  be  members  of  the  same  organizations.  The  con- 
flict exists  in  these  bodies  themselves,  from  whence  it  is  transmitted 
to  the  body  of  the  Church,  and  if  traced  to  the  cause  which  pro- 
duces it,  will  be  found  to  arise  from  the  same  disturbing  element — 
the  difference  of  language  and  of  the  views  and  usages  peculiar  to 
each.  The  idea,  then,  is  that  the  work  of  the  Church  should  be  pur- 
sued separately — not  in  a  spirit  of  antagonism,  but  in  harmony — the 
German  and  the  English  branches  each  pursuing  the  same  great  end, 
and  in  that  sphere  of  usefulness  for  which  its  means  best  adapt  it. 
The  opposite  course  has  been  repeatedly  tried  and  always  failed, 
and  from  the  force  of  circumstances  will  fail,  in  whatever  form  it 
may  be  proposed. 

To  a  certain  extent  unity  is  practicable,  and  great  benefits  to  the 
Church  would  result  from  it  if  established.  There  may  be  unity  in 
essentials.  All  can  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  is  given  to 
us.  It  is  broad  and  liberal,  and  is  the  corner-stone  upon  which  all 
other  Protestant  Church  creeds  were  built.  We  can  accept  it  as 
Presbyterians  accept,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith;  as  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  accepts  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  Not 
a  plank  need  be  disturbed,  with  a  view  to  a  more  definite  platform; 
nor  need  its  liberal  spirit  be  marred  by  the  interpolation  of  addi- 
tional points  or  rules — rules  which  no  one  can  understand  or  explain, 
and  which,  seemingly  at  least,  are  at  variance  with  its  spirit,  if  not 
with  the  spirit  of  Christianity  itself.  One  in  doctrine  and  forms  of 
worship,  with  friendly  correspondence,  but  separate  in  the  respects 
named, — when  that  comes  to  pass,  then  will  we  have  peace  and  a 
larger  unity  than  any  we  have  yet  enjoyed.  In  separation  of  such  a 
character  there  is  growth  and  expansion;  in  an  enforced  union,  or 
one  established  by  the  resolutions  of  Synods,  there  is  restriction, 
conflict,  dissension.     With  such  a  policy,  Lutherans  may  be  kept  in 


DISCUSSION.  171 

Lutheran  churches,  and,  instead  of  building  up  those  of  otlier 
denominations,  will  build  up  their  own. 

I  say,  then,  in  essentials,  unity;  in  non-essentials,  liberty — not  the 
liberty  which  tolerates  and  excuses  compromises  of  established  ssy- 
tems  of  belief — not  the  liberty  which  leaves  to  individual  taste,  cor- 
rect, crude,  or  eccentric,  as  may  happen,  the  forms  of  worship  to  be 
observed.  In  sacred  things  let  us  have  uniformity,  rather  ;  one  pre- 
scribed form  to  be  observed  by  all,  and  in  all  things  charity, — not 
the  charity  which  sanctions  erroneous  interpretations  of  fundamental 
truths,  and  permits  irregularity  in  religious  observances — but  that 
charity  which  refuses  to  denounce  and  condemn  the  different  phases 
of  personal  piety  as  developed  in  different  individuals. 

In  behalf,  then,  of  the  great  body  of  the  laity  of  the  Church,  I 
invoke  peace.  Let  us  be  careful  that  the  chasm  which  divides  us 
does  not  grow  wider  and  deeper,  but,  rather,  that  the  day  may  soon 
come  when  we  can  clasp  hands  across  it,  and  be  one  in  fundamen- 
tals, one  in  forms,  one  in  aim  and  purpose.  Then  will  all  the 
branches  grow  and  expand.  Then  will  the  Lutheran  Church  in- 
crease in  numbers,  in  power  and  influence. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  L.  E.  ALBERT,  D.  D.   {Gniera/  Synod.) 

He  was  compelled  to  differ  with  Dr.  Luther  in  the  plan  proposed 
for  solving  the  problem  of  language.  The  German  and  the  Eng- 
lish elements  were  necessary  to  each  other ;  and  even  although  there 
was  occasional  friction,  yet  there  were  advantages  in  their  union 
that  more  than  compensated  for  the  disadvantages  and  embarrass- 
ments that  sometimes  gave  trouble.  He  was  compelled  to  testify, 
that  of  the  members  whom  he  received  into  his  congregation  from 
other  churches,  those  from  the  German  churches  were  almost  always 
the  most  faithful.  They  had  been  carefully  trained  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church,  they  were  ardently  attached  to  it,  and  were  to  be 
found  in  their  places  long  after  many  from  other  (quarters,  who  had 
at  first  promised  well,  had  disappeared.  On  no  account  would  he 
favor  any  separation  on  the  basis  of  language.  The  closest  intimacy 
and  best  understanding  between  the  representatives  of  the  two  lan- 
guages should  be  cultivated. 


1/2 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  K.  PLITT.  {General  Council.) 
I  have  listened  with  much  interest  to  the  essay  of  Dr.  Luther.  It 
is  unusual  to  have  the  pleasure  of  hearing  laymen  in  productions 
so  carefully  prepared.  But  whilst  the  Doctor  has  given  a  graphic 
description  of  certain  evils  afflicting  our  Church,  he  presents  a  rather 
startling  remedy,  and  seems  to  be  self-contradictory.  Separation 
of  the  languages  in  congregations,  institutions,  etc.,  is  what  he  pro- 
poses, and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  would  have  unity  in  doctrine, 
uniformity  in  worship,  and  oneness  of  aim  and  purpose.  But  if  we 
can  have  the  latter,  why  the  former?  Diversity  in  doctrine  is  the 
chief  thing  that  causes  separation.  Let  us  be  united  in  the  faith 
— for  that  is  the  great  point  on  which  a  true  unity  hinges — and  we 
will  have  no  need  of  separation.  Other  matters  will  soon  right 
themselves — our  divisions  will  soon  be  healed. 


REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  B.  RATH.     {General  Council.) 

I  am  sorry  that  I  am  unable  to  agree  with  the  essayist  in  the  main 
point  of  his  paper,  seporation,  as  the  remedy  for  our  troubles  be- 
tween the  German  and  the  English.  The  evils  which  he  represents 
as  growing  out  of  the  contact  of  the  two  languages,  do  indeed  exist 
to  a  considerable  degree,  and  no  one  deplores  them  more  heartily 
than  myself.  But  the  remedy  he  suggests  for  their  removal,  appears 
to  my  mind  worse  than  the  evils  themselves.  He  recommends  the 
radical  remedy  of  separation — separation  of  congregations,  of 
Synods  and  of  theological  institutions,  on  the  basis  of  language. 
Instead  of  this  measure  being  a  cure  of  the  troubles  complained  of, 
I  fear  it  would  prove  itself  the  mischievous  cause  of  rendering  them 
worse.  Whatever  success  as  a  Church  we  have  had,  at  least  in 
Pennsylvania,  is  owing  largely  to  the  joint  use  of  the  two  languages 
in  our  congregations,  Synods  and  Seminaries.  The  history  of  the 
English  churches  in  Lancaster,  Lebanon,  Reading,  Easton,  Bethle- 
hem and  other  towns  in  eastern  Pennsylvania,  is  a  standing  witness 
to  this  fact.     These  congregations  nearly  all  took  their  origin  in 


DISCUSSION.  173 

German  congregations  that  introduced  tlic  English  language  into 
their  services,  and  maintained  the  same  for  years  side  by  side  with 
the  German,  until  the  English  elements  were  sufficiently  strong  to 
separate  from  the  parent  congregations,  and  to  establish  themselves 
as  entirely  English  cliurches.  Had,  however,  the  policy  of  separa- 
tion prevailed,  the  policy  of  not  allowing  both  languages  to  be  used 
jointly  in  the  same  congregations,  some  of  these  prosperous  English 
churches  to  which  we  have  alluded,  would  have  no  existence  to-day. 
We  do  not  deny  that  some  of  our  German  congregations  opposed 
English  services  in  their  churches  too  long,  but  this  fact  simply 
shows  that  they  held  on  to  the  idea  of  separation — German  sepa- 
rate from  English — too  long.  Where  this  suicidal  measure  was 
never  adopted,  or  abandoned  very  early,  there  the  two  languages 
were  used  conjointly  without  any  unpleasant  friction  and  with  good 
results.  The  true  remedy,  therefore,  it  seems  to  us,  is  not  separa- 
tion, but  closer,  more  harmonious  union  and  co-operation.  The 
beauty  and  excellency  of  the  united  employment  of  the  two 
languages,  are  also  illustrated  in  our  Synods  and  theological 
Seminaries.  If  you  wish  to  represent  to  your  mind  the  condi- 
tion of  things,  as  they  would  naturally  be  as  the  result  of  the 
mistaken  policy  of  radical  separation,  imagine  in  this  city  of  Phil- 
adelphia, instead  of  our  one  theological  seminary  with  its  har- 
monious co-working  of  both  languages,  the  existence  of  two  sem- 
inaries arrayed  against  each  other  on  the  score  of  language.  Or 
imagine  the  dividing  line  of  language  arbitrarily  drawn  between 
Synods  occupying  the  same  geographical  territory,  and  that  a  terri- 
tory, on  which  Providence  has  brought  both  languages  into  the  same 
localities,  into  the  same  congregations,  and  even  into  the  same  families 
— how,  under  such  circumstances,  would  it  be  possible  to  avoid  still 
greater  rivalries,  oppositions  and  contentions  than  those  we  are  now 
troubled  with  ?  German  and  English  brethren  should  not  thus  be 
separated,  when  Providence  has  indicated  that  they  should  both 
dwell  in  concord  in  the  same  house,  in  the  same  congregation,  in 


1/4  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  same  Synod.  To  this  union  of  languages  is  also  applicable  the 
Master's  injunction:  "What,  therefore,  God  hath  joined  together, 
let  not  man  put  asunder."  If  here  and  there  be  prejudice  and 
conflict  between  brethren,  simply  because  one  speaks  a  different 
language  from  the  other,  let  not  such  a  state  of  things  be  en- 
dorsed and  encouraged  by  separation  of  persons  and  interests,  but 
let  it  be  remedied  by  dwelling  together,  and  praying  that  the  grace 
of  God  may  take  from  our  hearts  such  childish  antagonisms.  For 
verily  the  alienation  or  opposition  of  Christians,  on  no  other  ground 
than  that  of  using  different  languages,  is  no  more  respectable  before 
men  or  justifiable  before  God,  than  that  which  bases  itself  upon  the 
cut  of  a  coat,  the  presence  of  a  button,  or  the  breadth  of  the  brim 
of  a  hat. 

May  the  Lord  grant  us  grace  to  overcome  any  and  all  such  insig- 
nificant obstacles  in  the  way  of  harmony  and  peace. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  KOHLER.      {General  Council.) 

The  brother  who  has  just  spoken,  is  probably  not  so  well  informed 
as  some  others,  in  regard  to  the  introduction  of  the  English  language 
in  the  churches  to  which  he  has  referred.  There  was  opposition  on 
the  part  of  the  Germans.  Instead  of  being  helpful  to  its  introduc- 
tion, they  generally  opposed  it.  In  Reading  particularly,  was  there 
great  opposition,  and  it  was  only  after  some  members  of  Trinity 
Church  went  out  and  organized  an  English  congregation,  that 
steps  were  taken  to  have  English  services  in  that  church.  Almost 
everywhere  was  the  introduction  of  the  English  language  resisted. 
Had  the  English  language  been  timely  used,  and  our  people  prop- 
erly provided  and  cared  for,  our  Church  in  this  land  would  now 
be  larger  than  any  two  of  the  largest  denominations  together. 

But  it  is  more  particularly  in  regard  to  that  part  of  the  essay 
which  refers  to  uniformity,  that  I  wish  to  speak.  It  is  here,  that 
there  is  a  great  want  in  our  Church — even  in  regard  to  the  German 
and  English.    I  think  it  would  be  a  great  advantage  if  there  were  more 


DISCUSSION.  175 

similarity  in  the  services.  If  the  Germans,  coming  into  our  English 
churches,  noticed  the  same  service  as  in  their  own,  they  would  be 
more  readily  drawn  to  the  English  churches.  If  you  go  into  our 
German  churches  in  this  city,  and  then  into  many  of  our  English 
churches,  you  will  sec  little  or  no  similarity.  In  the  German 
churches,  the  pastor  wears  a  gown,  uses  a  liturgical  service,  and 
everything  wears  a  churchly  appearance ;  but  in  most  of  our  English 
churches  it  is  quite  different.  I  have  known  members  of  German 
churches  to  remark  this.  There  should  be  uniformity,  so  that  when 
our  German  people  come  into  an  English  church,  they  will  see 
everything  as  in  their  own,  and  then  they  will  more  likely  unite 
with  it.  As  it  is,  they  find  little  difference  between  most  of  our 
English  churches  and  those  of  the  denominations. 

There  should  be  uniformity  in  all  our  churches,  so  that  our  peo- 
ple, English  and  German,  going  into  a  Lutheran  church  anywhere, 
would  at  once  know  that  they  were  in  a  Lutheran  church,  and  could 
feel  at  home.  Such  a  uniformity  would  do  much  towards  drawing 
the  different  parts  of  the  Church  together,  and  keeping  them 
together. 

In  the  essay  of  yesterday  afternoon,  there  was  reference  made  to 
the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  Churches;  though  there  are  doc- 
trinal differences  among  them,  they  are  yet  united.  But  these 
Churches  maintained  uniformity.  In  the  Episcopal  Church,  there 
are  probably  greater  doctrinal  differences  than  in  ours,  yet  Episco- 
palians keep  together  and  co-operate  with  each  other.  They  are 
held  together  by  their  order  of  service,  which  is  the  same  every- 
where. Go  into  any  of  their  churches,  and  there  is  the  same  clerical 
dress,  the  same  order  of  service — the  same  hymns  and  prayer-book 
—  and  so  it  should  be  among  us. 

I  am  aware  that  this  is  not  the  main  thing,  and  that  doctrine  is 
of  more  importance.  But  this  outward  uniformity  is  also  a  matter 
of  great  importance — our  laity  attach  importance  to  it — and  they 
complain  because  there  is  such  a  lack  of  uniformity.  I  have  con- 
siderable acquaintance  with  our  churches    in  eastern  and  central 


176  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Pennsylvania  ;  and  everywhere,  and  from  persons  on  both  sides  of 
tlie  house,  I  have  repeatedly  heard  complaints  about  our  want  of 
uniformity.  Whatever  the  order  be,  let  there  be  but  one,  they  say. 
And,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  would  do  much  towards  bringing 
all  parts  of  our  Church  closer  together,  if  we  could  have  the  same 
external  order — the  same  order  of  service,  the  same  hymn-book,  the 
same  clerical  dress,  and  the  same  polity ;  and  let  it  be  our  aim  to 
bring  about  such  a  uniformity. 

President  Sadder  (General  Council,)  remarked  that  it  would  un- 
doubtedly give  the  Diet  great  pleasure  to  hear  from  the  representa- 
tives of  the  German  churches,  Drs.  Mann  and  Spaeth,  on  this 
subject. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  W.  J.  MANN,  D.  D.  {General  Coiincil.) 
It  is  practically  impossible  to  draw  a  line  of  demarkation  between 
the  English  and  the  German;  it  is  impossible  in  family  life,  in  social 
intercourse,  and  everywhere.  This  condition  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  this  country,  is  a  simple  fact,  but  as  such  a  very  stubborn 
thing.  It  only  requires  of  the  two  parties,  thus  brought  into  contact, 
some  degree  of  good  will  and  common  sense,  and  things  will  soon 
set  themselves  right.  The  German,  being  placed  in  an  entirely  new 
order  of  things,  in  Church,  State,  and  society,  has  to  learn  a  good 
deal  and  is  benefited  by  it.  The  Americans  also  have  to  learn  from 
the  Germans.  There  is  not  a  pastor's  library,  from  Maine  to  Cali- 
fornia, in  Avhich  you  cannot  find  translations  of  German  theological 
works;  and  the  influence  of  German  literature,  for  good  or  for  evil, 
is  felt  all  over  the  world.  Consequently,  Lutheran  theological  stu- 
dents, especially,  can  do  nothing  better  than  to  do  their  best  in  study- 
ing German,  and  thus  make  themselves  infinitely  more  useful. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  A.  SPAETH,  D.  D.     [General  Coimcil.) 
I  am  heartily  with  those  who  oppose  the  separation  or  division  of 
the  Church  on  the  basis  of  language  alone.    I  am  so  warmly  attached 
to  the  old  Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  because  it  is,  as  Dr.  Krotel  calls 


DISCUSSION,  1/7 

it,  the  paradise  for  those  who  understand  both  languages.  I  have 
never  opposed,  nor  will  I  ever  oppose,  the  tranfer  of  a  member  of 
my  German  Lutheran  congregation  to  an  English  "Lutheran" 
church,  simply  on  account  of  the  language.  But  if  the  hope  is  ex- 
pressed, that  the  members  of  our  Cicrman  Lutheran  churches  would 
feel  themselves  more  at  home  in  the  English  churches,  if  they  would 
there  find  the  gown,  the  altar,  the  baptismal  font,  and  other  features 
of  a  churchly  character,  I  wish  to  correct  such  an  idea.  Wherever 
there  is  a  truly  Lutheran  feeling  amongst  our  people,  these  outward 
things  will  not  in  themselves  satisfy  them  as  the  signs  of  the  true 
Church  of  their  fathers.  Our  people  will  have  to  look  for  other  evi- 
dences. They  will  have  to  regard  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  congre- 
gation, with  which  they  intend  to  connect  themselves  ;  they  v^rill 
have  to  examine  the  books  of  worship,  the  "Catechism,"  etc.  And 
though  the  gown  should  be  used  in  this  church  of  St.  Matthew's, 
and  though  our  old  German  tunes  should  be  sung,  which  are  so 
dear  to  my  heart,  still  I  could  not  and  would  not  recommend  this 
congregation  to  any  member  of  my  church,  as  long  as  he  would 
find  here  another  catechism,  than  the  pure,  unaltered  Catechism 
of  Dr.  Martin  Luther.  Let  us  first  be  one,  truly  one  in  the  faith, 
and  the  difference  of  language  will  not  be  able  to  separate  us ! 

After  a  few  remarks  by  Rev.  H.  S.  Cook,  the  discussion  was  closed 
by  Dr.  Luther  as  follows  : 

REMARKS  OF  DILLER  LUTHER,  M.  D.  {General  Synod.) 
The  injury  caused  by  the  conflict  of  languages  to  Lutheran 
Churches,  particularly  in  the  earlier  period,  is  so  well  known  that  I 
am  surprised  any  one  should  deny  it.  If  the  clerical  brother  from 
Bethlehem,  will  but  incpiire  into  the  history  of  those  churches  in 
past  years,  he  will  find  that  their  decline  is  owing  to  that  single 
cause,  and  that  in  almost  every  locality,  the  congregations  of  other 
denominations  are  composed  very  largely  of  persons  received  from 
Lutheran  families. 


1/8  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

It  has  been  slated  also  that  httle  or  no  difficulty  occurs  from  this 
cause  at  this  time,  that  interchanges  are  made  from  time  to  time 
between  English  and  German  congregations,  and  that  these  transfers 
are  made  in  a  spirit  of  the  utmost  good  will.  This  is  just  what  we 
desire  to  see,  but  will  my  friend  Dr.  Albert  inform  us  to  what  extent 
this  kind  of  fraternal  amiability  is  practiced  in  his  community?  I 
can  understand  that  when  a  member  finds  he  has  made  a  mistake, 
and  is  not  in  the  Church  to  suit  him,  that  he  will  be  handed  over  to 
another ;  but  I  have  yet  to  see  the  minister  or  church  that  will  part 
with  one-half  or  two-thirds  of  the  membership,  without  manifesting 
very  decided  displeasure. 

But  this  does  not  touch  the  point  in  the  argument.  That  these 
transfers  should  be  made  and  are  desirable,  is  just  what  we  plead  for, 
because  as  we  now  have  both  German  and  English  churches  at 
almost  every  place,  they  are  perfectly  practicable.  Formerly  this  was 
not  the  case.  And  even  yet,  in  many  instances,  it  is  not  practiced,  but 
sternly  discountenanced.  What  I  complain  of,  is,  that  the  German 
portion  of  the  Church  has  never  adopted  a  policy  favorable  to  build- 
ing up  English  Lutheran  churches,  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  to  the 
interest  of  both  parties  to  pursue  their  work  separately.  Both  par- 
ties have  become  too  strong  to  be  controlled  or  trammeled.  So  long 
as  immigration  continues,  we  will  have  a  German  and  English  party 
— a  German  and  English  policy.  For  it  must  be  remembered  that 
our  Church  in  this  country,  is  exceptional,  in  that  it  is  composed  of 
people  of  two  different  tongues.  Hence  our  trouble.  The  attempt 
to  conduct  religious  work  together  in  the  churches,  was  a  mistake 
and  a  failure  from  the  very  beginning. 

When  my  learned  friend.  Dr.  Mann,  states  that  he  would  consider 
it  a  hardship,  to  be  deprived  of  the  pleasure  of  social  intercourse 
with  his  children,  because  of  their  being  instructed  in  several  mod- 
ern languages,  I  can  understand  perfectly  that  these  accomplish- 
ments will  not  in  any  degree  disturb  the  domestic  harmony.  But 
this  does  not  convey  a  proper  idea  of  the  difficulty.     When  persons 


DISCUSSION.  1 79 

of  two  or  three  different  nationalities,  with  their  famihes — German, 
French,  and  if  you  choose,  Irish — undertake  to  keep  house 
together,  will  the  doctor  favor  us  with  his  opinion,  whether  a  very 
exalted  degree  of  social  happiness,  is  to  be  expected  in  a  household 
thus  made  up?  And  yet  the  kindest  and  most  friendly  relations  may 
be  maintained  between  them  by  living  separately.  And  so  it  is  with 
churches  and  congregations,  where  discrepancies  such  as  have  been 
referred  to  exist — the  greatest  harmony,  unity  and  co-operation  are  to 
be  found,  not  in  intimate  association,  but  in  the  separate  pursuit  of 
the  work  of  the  Church.  Separation  in  the  way  pointed  out,  does 
not  mean  antagonism.  It  is  the  way  to  peace,  and  the  method  best 
calculated  to  ensure  the  largest  growth  and  prosperity,  for  both 
branches  of  the  Church. 

The  seventh  paper  was  then  read. 


MISUNDERSTANDINGS  AND  MISREPRESENTATIONS 
OF  THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

BY    REV.    JOS.    A.    SEISS,    D.  D.,   PHILADELPHIA,   PA. 

IT  seems  to  be  the  fate  of  Lutherans,  even  from  the  beginning, 
to  be  under  necessity  to  contend  with  an  infinite  variety  of  mis- 
understandings and  misrepresentations. 

Before  the  great  Diet  of  Augsburg  was  held,  Luther  tells  us,  a 
certain  doctor  was  sent  from  France  to  Wittenberg,  who  publicly 
declared  that  the  French  monarch  was  fully  persuaded  there  was  no 
church,  no  magistrate,  no  wedlock,  among  Lutherans,  but  that  all 
lived  promiscuously,  each  according  to  his  inclination,  as  mere  brutes. 

Alphonsus,  chaplain  of  one  of  the  high  dignitaries  of  Spain,  after 
hearing  the  Augsburg  Confession  read  to  the  Emperor,  said  to 
Melanchthon,  "  Dear  Philip,  in  Spain  we  hear  quite  other  things  of 
you;  for  there  the  people  are  taught  to  believe  that  you  are  men 
who  deny  the  Holy  Trinity,  speak  in  a  blasphemous  manner  of 
Christ  and  His  holy  mother,  pervert  the  Sacraments,  hold  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  be  no  more  than  any  other  sign,  disregard  authorities, 
live  in  open  unchastity,  and  give  place  to  other  dreadful  sins  and 
lusts." 

The  presentation , of  that  immortal  document,  which  is  the  com- 
mon confessional  bond  and  note  of  all  proper  Lutherans,  served  to 
sweep  away  effectually  all  such  slanders,  where  people  have  been 
at  the  pains  and  honesty  to  inform  themselves.  But  still,  even  after 
the  lapse  of  three  centuries  and  a  half,  filled  with  the  noblest,  clear- 
est, and  most  widely- sounded  testimonies  of  the  modern  ages,  the 
abuses  of  the  public  mind,  in  some  quarters,  are  hardly  less  out- 
rageous, if  some  who  claim  to  be  instructors  are  to  be  believed. 
Yea,  surely,  if  to  have  all  manner  of  evil  said  against  us  falsely  is  a 
blessedness,  then  are  Lutherans  a  highly  blessed  people. 

Often  from  within,  as  well  as  from  without,  the  presentations 
have  sometimes  been  awry.  Even  in  the  wording  of  the  theme  as- 
signed me,  there  is  a  phrase — one  in  the  most  common  use,  and  for 

(i8o) 


DR.    SEISS'    ESSAY.  l8l 

which  it  is  hard  to  find  a  substitute  ecjually  convenient,  yet  liable 
to  give  an  erroneous  impression,  and  conveying  an  idea  which  some 
accept  and  argue  from  without  perhaps  proper  foundation  for  so  do- 
ing. We  talk  and  write  familiarly  about  "  TJie  Lutheran  Church.'^ 
We  know  what  we  mean  by  it,  and  in  some  measure  the  terms  ex- 
press what  we  mean.  But,  taken  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we 
speak  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  Greek  Church,  or  the 
Church  of  England,  the  phrase  is  not  quite  correct.  In  that  sense 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  The  Lutheran  Church.  There  are  Luther- 
ans by  the  million  ;  there  are  particular  ecclesiastical  establishments, 
in  different  countries,  which  accept  and  confess  the  Lutheran  form- 
ulas of  doctrine;  there  are  Lutheran  Churches,  Synods,  and  general 
consociations;  and,  for  convenience,  we  may  call  the  totality  of 
these.  The  Lutheran  Church.  But  in  so  far  as  corporate  oneness, 
organic  unity,  interdependence  of  one  part  on  another,  or  uniform- 
ity of  government  and  administration,  are  implied,  the  language  is 
inapplicable  and  misleading. 

Taking  it  as  part  of  our  fundamental  confession,  that  it  is  not 
necessary  that  human  traditions,  rites,  or  ceremonies,  instituted  by 
men,  should  be  everywhere  alike,  the  Lutheran  Churches,  from 
the  beginning,  exhibited  very  great  differences  and  variety  in  their 
liturgies,  their  forms  of  government,  and  their  methods  of  doing. 
In  some  countries,  the  old  Episcopal  order  has  been  retained,  as  in 
Sweden;  in  others,  a  new  semi-Episcopal  arrangement  was  insti- 
tuted ;  in  a  few  places  an  independent  Congregationalism  held;  and 
no  one  general  court  for  the  whole  has  at  any  time  existed.  Like 
the  primitive  Churches,  the  Lutherans  never  have  had  any  govern- 
mental concorporation  with  each  other.  They  have  no  one  outward 
head  or  centre.  They  do  not  acknowledge  themselves  amenable  to 
any  one  earthly  ecclesiastical  authority.  And  whilst  we  can  very 
properly  speak  of  Lutheran  confessions — of  Lutheran  Churches — 
provincial  and  individual — of  Lutheran  consistories,  synods  and 
consociations,  and  may  readily  trace  a  common  family  likeness  be- 
tween them,  more  or  less  answering  to  their  family  name — when 
we  come  to  speak  of  the  whole  as  The  Lutheran  Church,  we  cannot 
do  so  in  truth  in  any  such  sense  as  would  imply  a  common  jurisdic- 
tion, organic  connection,  unity  of  external  order,  or  any  corpora- 
tion or  establishment  to  command,  bind,  or  speak  with  authority. 
Whether  it  be  our  infirmity  or  our  glory,  such  is  the  fact,  and  there 
is  no  way  of  altering  it. 


1 82  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Many  of  the  books  in  popular  circulation  describe  Lutherans  as 
"the  disciples  and  followers  of  Martin  Luther,"  "the  followers  of 
the  doctrine  of  Martin  Luther,"  "the  followers  of  Luther,''  "those 
Christians  who  follow  the  opinions  of  Martin  Luther."  In  a  subor- 
dinate and  imperfect  sense,  this  language  may  be  tolerated.  It  re- 
calls an  incidental  historical  fact,  which  it  partially  expresses,  but 
connects  with  it  a  suggestion  which  is  entirely  unjust.  Our  accepted 
name  would  seem  to  warrant  it ;  but  it  quite  ignores  the  restricted 
and  only  sense  in  which  that  name  is  accepted.  Though  we  be 
called  Lutherans,  it  is  not  that  we  build  on  Luther,  or  accept  him 
as  our  prophet,  or  fashion  our  belief  or  religion  to  anything  attach- 
ing to  his  person,  or  to  any  supposed  authority  on  his  part  to  pro- 
pound a  new  faith,  or  to  make  a  new  Church.  We  do,  indeed,  recog- 
nize in  Luther  a  noble  instrument  of  God's  providence,  in  recalling 
the  Church  and  the  world  from  the  destroying  errors  and  aberra- 
tions which  had  crept  into  Christendom,  and  in  directing  attention 
again  to  the  old  foundations  of  the  one  only  Gospel  of  salvation. 
Notwithstanding  the  adverse  judgments  of  such  scholars  as  Palivicini, 
Hallam,  Hamilton,  Pusey,  and  others  of  lesser  note,  we  gratefully 
acknowledge  him  as  a  highly  gifted  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  sin- 
cerity of  whose  heart,  the  purity  of  whose  aims,  the  strength  of  whose 
character,  the  clearness  and  vigor  of  whose  faith,  and  the  value  of 
whose  evangelic  labors  render  him  one  of  the  most  deserving  of 
men,  and  one  of  the  chief  treasures  of  Christendom  since  the  days 
of  the  Apostles.  Still,  it  is  not  Luther  we  follow,  but  the  Word  of 
Almighty  God,  delivered  by  Apostles  and  Prophets,  which  he  so 
clearly  perceived,  and  did  so  much  to  restore  to  mankind.  He 
brought  forth  the  old  Bible,  released  it  from  its  bonds,  and  re-enun- 
ciated it  as  the  divine  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  life.  So  we  also 
receive  and  hold  that  sacred  Book  of  books,  albeit,  not  for  Luther's 
sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  that  God  who  therein  speaks  to  men,  and 
demands  this  of  all  who  would  be  His  children.  To  the  one  only 
way  of  salvation  through  faith  in  the  only  Mediator,  the  God-man, 
Christ  Jesus,  he  was  marvelously  led;  and  the  same  he  re-asserted 
from  the  sacred  oracles  of  the  written  Word  over  against  the  falsities 
with  which  the  Papal  system  had  encumbered  and  obscured  it.  This 
one  only  way  of  salvation  we  embrace,  and  hold  forth  to  a  perishing 
world  as  man's  only  hope — not,  indeed,  for  Luther's  sake,  or  be- 
cause Luther  taught  it,  but  because  it  is  the  veritable  truth  of  Jeho- 


DR.   SEISS'    ESSAY,  1 83 

vah,  and  the  heart  and  sum  of  all  the  teachings  of  Divine  Revelation. 
For  such  agreement  with  Luther,  enemies  have  attached  to  us  his 
name ;  and  for  such  agreement  we  care  not  to  disown  it,  lest  we 
should  be  found  disowning  or  compromising  the  truth  of  God.  But 
Luther  is  not  our  Lord  and  Master,  as  Mahomet  to  the  Mahometans, 
or  the  Pope  of  Rome  to  the  poor  misbelievers  who  accept  his  dicta 
as  infallible.  In  any  sense,  therefore,  involving  authority  in  Luther 
to  teach  or  command  us,  except  as  God's  own  written  Word  teaches, 
we  are  not  his  disciples  or  followers. 

In  a  recent  work  on  The  Creeds  of  Christendom^  quoted  by  one 
of  the  essayists  who  has  preceded  me,  among  other  ungracious 
things  said  of  the  Lutherans,  the  stale  charge  of  man-worship  is 
again  insinuated  against  us.  "The  towering  greatness  of  Luther" 
is  there  put  forward  as  the  particular  fly  in  the  ointment  of  our 
sanctity.  We  may  be  excused  for  remanding  it  to  its  source  as  a 
particular  falsehood.  Whether  the  enunciator  of  the  truth  be  a 
saint  or  sinner,  great  or  small,  that  truth  we  must  acknowledge. 
Mere  persons,  or  the  worth  and  credit  of  men,  are  nothing  to  the 
obligations  of  truth.  For  this  reason  we  would  be  bound  to  ac- 
knowledge Luther  as  a  witness,  were  he  a  score  of  times  greater  or 
less  than  he  was.  Gold  is  gold,  whether  on  the  finger  of  the  king, 
or  on  the  neck  of  a  harlot ;  and  the  truth  is  the  truth,  equally  di- 
vine and  binding,  whoever  speaks  it.  We  are  bound  to  confess  it, 
fully  and  without  stint,  even  with  a  Martin  Luther,  though  his 
"  towering  greatness"  be  "  a  misfortune,"  and  "  a  constant  tempta- 
tion to  hero-worship."  But  we  are  not  quite  ready  to  admit  that\ 
God,  in  ordering  His  Providence  concerning  His  Church,  made  a/ 
grand  mistake  in  not  availing  Himself  of  the  wisdom  of  certain  R^ 
formed  theologians. 

Of  late  years,  a  class  of  writers  and  ecclesiastical  operators  has 
arisen,  who  have  discovered  that,  somehow,  the  great  Reformation, 
though  necessary,  was  a  great  mistake.  They  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  an  unfortunate  dislocation  in  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Accepting,  in  general,  the  principles  which  governed  it, 
and,  in  some  instances,  subscribing  to  a  very  Lutheranizing  creed, 
they  yet  have  most  serious  fault  to  find  with  Luther,  with  the  out- 
come of  the  Evangelical  cause  in  general,  and  with  its  representa- 
tion by  Lutheranism  in  particular.  They  admit  that  some  break 
was  unavoidable,  but  speak  of  the  fracture  as  badly  managed — "a 


184  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

leg  badly  set,  which  needs  to  be  broken  again  to  be  set  right."  In 
the  ideal  held  forth  by  these  people,  Lutherans  are  necessarily  schis- 
matics, and  full  of  vital  defects.  We  do  not  rightly  conceive  of  the 
Church.  We  have  not  been  careful  enough  to  retain  the  episcopate, 
and  do  not  lay  sufficient  stress  upon  orders.  We  are  too  radical  in 
our  denial  of  the  priestly  mediatorship  of  the  clergy,  and  the  self- 
operating  power  of  episcopally  administered  sacraments.  Our  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith  only,  is  too  antinomian,  unsafe  for 
souls,  and  detrimental  to  practical  godliness.  And,  in  one  way 
or  another,  they  have  a  particular  quarrel  with  Luther  and  the 
Lutherans. 

This  sort  of  twaddle  has  its  "head  centre"  among  the  Tractari- 
ans  and  High  Churchmen  of  England,  who  are  echoed  by  a  some- 
what corresponding  class  in  this  country.  Scores  of  the  greatest 
lights  in  the  English  establishment,  for  300  years,  were  accustomed 
to  speak  of  the  Lutheran  Churches  of  the  Continent,  as  "  the  Church 
of  England's  dearest  sisters  abroad^  One  of  the  greatest  champ- 
ions and  defenders  of  the  English  establishments,  "  the  judicious 
Hooker,"  put  it  in  his  greatest  book,  ^^  I  dare  not  deny  the  salva- 
tion of  the  Lutheran  Churches,  which  have  been  the  chiefest  instru- 
ments of  ours.''  In  the  times  of  the  formation  of  the  Church  of 
England,  the  Lutheran  theologians  were  looked  to  as  the  preemi- 
nent representatives  of  renewed  and  proper  Christianity,  and  were 
besought  and  welcomed  to  take  the  highest  places  which  that  estab- 
lishment had  to  give.  In  our  day,  the  Lutheran  Prince  Albert,  of 
Germany,  and  the  Lutheran  Princess  Alexandria,  of  Scandinavia, 
are  as  fully  acknowledged  by  the  English  Church  as  its  own  noble 
Queen  Victoria,  and  that  Queen's  daughters  are  transferred  to  the 
churches  of  the  Continent  without  thought  or  ceremony  of  a  change 
of  religion.  And  these  new  doctors  themselves  have,  as  their  only 
public  creed  to  this  day,  those  Articles  of  Religion  which  have  been 
shown  to  be  so  largely  derived  from  the  Lutheran  Formulas,  and 
use  and  honor  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  whose  main  contents 
have  come  through  Lutheran  hands,  and  bear  a  Lutheran  mold. 
And  yet,  when  they  come  to  speak  of  Luther  and  the  Lutherans, 
they  exclaim  in  holy  horror  at  the  defects  and  heresies  they  find. 
With  them  Protestantism  is  a  failure,  and  indefensible  without  radi- 
cal changes.  It  must  be  reconstructed.  The  whole  Reformation 
must  be  done  over.     The  past  350  years  must  be  ignored,  and  a 


DR.    SEISS'    ESSAY.  1 85 

new  departure  taken.  Just  what  tlie  new  thing  is  to  be,  they  are 
not  yet  able  to  tell.  That  is  the  problem  yet  to  be  worked  out. 
Whether  or  not  we  are  to  have  a  pope,  to  serve  as  a  centre  of  the 
new  unity,  is  an  open  question;  only  tlic schism  of  the  i6th  century 
must  somehow  be  healed.  Concerning  the  infallible  supremacy, 
purgatory,  and  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  a  little  "under- 
standing" is  necessary,  but  that  can  be  afterwards  adjusted.  The 
existing  Formulas  must  be  revised  and  denuded  of  their  positiveness. 
The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  must  be  set  aside,  at  least  from 
the  central  position  which  the  Lutherans  assign  it.  Ministerial 
orders  and  sacerdotalism  must  be  restored,  and  duly  legitimated. 
The  confessional,  and  the  whole  round  of  a  gaudy  ceremonial, 
minus,  perhaps,  a  few  abuses,  must  be  brought  back.  Brotherhoods 
and  sisterhoods,  with  special  vows  and  commissions,  must  be  en- 
couraged and  re-established.  Good  works  and  special  sanctities 
must  have  more  stress  laid  upon  them.  And  so  the  suggestions  run 
on.  Bat  the  real  spirit  is  easily  divined.  It  carries  its  mark  on  its 
forehead.  //  means  Romanism — return  to  the  old  abominations  of 
Egypt  and  Babylon,  whither  scores  on  scores  of  these  new  Reform- 
ers have  already  betaken  themselves,  as  the  only  outcome  of  this  pro- 
posed resetting  of  the  limb  so  bally  managed  by  the  old  doctors. 
The  multitudinousness  of  the  perverts  to  Rome  by  this  road,  ought, 
of  itself,  to  open  the  eyes  of  all  thinking  people  to  the  folly  and  ruin 
of  listening  to  such  quacks  as  would  fain  repair  the  bungled  surgery 
under  which  the  most  virtuous  and  enlightened  of  the  earth,  for 
three  and  a  half  centuries,  have  lived  and  prospered. 

As  to  the  tumid  assaults  of  these  people  on  the  great  Reformer, 
Archdeacon  Hare  has  made  noble  answer,  in  his  triumphant  Vindi- 
cation of  Lttther.  He  has  shown  to  their  shame,  how  little  they 
knew  of  him  whom  they  so  harshly  judge,  how  little  they  cared  to 
know  of  him,  and  with  what  malignant  prejudice  they  have  rehashed 
and  exaggerated  the  false  and  oft-refuted  charges  of  the  Romish  con- 
troversialists. Bossuet's  Variations  and  Moehler's  SymhoUk  have 
furnished  about  the  only  armor  they  have  brought  to  bear  in  the 
case.  And  from  the  base  insinuations  and  garbled  quotations  thence 
derived,  these  new  lights  have  ventured  assertions  which  even  the 
Romish  partisans,  in  all  their  hatred,  did  not  dare  to  make. 

That  a  great  and  incurable  breach  did  occur  between  the  Lutherans 
and   Rome  during   the    i6th  century,  history  amply  attests.     But 
1% 


1 86  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET, 

that  it  was  a  guilty  schism  from  the  true  CathoUc  Church,  the  sin  of 
which  hes  at  our  door,  is  an  unmodified  falsehood,  as  all  the  facts 
conclusively  prove.  Palmer,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Church,  without 
at  all  touching  the  real  depths  of  the  matter,  quite  exculpates  our 
fathers  from  every  shade  and  degree  of  separatism  or  schism.  Had 
he  put  the  whole  case,  the  showing  to  his  purpose  would  have  been 
completely  overwhelming. 

From  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  time  of  Luther,  there  was 
not  a  creed  of  the  true  Catholic  Church  which  the  Lutherans  did 
not  fully  accept  and  retain  ;  not  a  heresy  or  perversion  of  the  truth 
condemned  and  rejected  by  the  true  Catholic  Church,  which  the  Lu- 
therans did  not  likewise  condemn  and  reject ;  not  a  book  of  the 
sacred  Canon,  not  a  law  for  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  not  a  prin- 
ciple with  reference  to  their  authority  and  use,  not  a  legitimate  tri- 
bunal for  the  final  settlement  of  controversies  about  the  faith,  ac- 
cepted and  approved  by  the  true  Catholic  Church,  which  the  Lu- 
therans did  not  also  accept,  approve,  and  propose  to  abide  by.  Li 
the  greatest  of  their  Confessions,  solemnly  laid  before  the  Diet  of  the 
empire  in  the  name  of  them  all,  the  assertion  is  made,  and  reiterated 
again  and  again,  as  holding  throughout  the  twenty-eight  articles,  and 
in  all  the  sum  of  doctrine  held  and  taught  among  Lutherans,  that 
"  there  is  nothing  which  is  discrepant  with  the  Scriptures,  or  with 
the  Church  Catholic,  or  even  with  the  Roman  Church,  so  far  as  that 
Church  is  known  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers."  And  in  all 
the  controversies  then  or  thereafter,  no  one  has  ever  been  able  to 
show  that  it  was  not  the  exact  truth.  It  therefore  follows,  that,  in 
all  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine,  which  are  everywhere  and  always 
the  chief  and  constitutive  things  of  the  Church,  the  Lutherans  were 
neither  heretics  nor  schismatics. 

And  as  to  external  fellowship,  there  never  was,  among  any  people, 
a  more  earnest  and  persistent  endeavor  to  maintain  connection  with 
the  order  which  then  obtained,  than  that  which  the  Lutherans 
exhibited.  When  the  Reformation  begun,  Luther  had  not  the  slight- 
est idea  of  separating  from  the  Church.  Nay,  from  first  to  last,  he 
never  ceased  to  appeal  to  its  authority,  and  to  pledge  himself  to  the 
most  humble  obedience  whensoever  its  legitimate  decision  should  be 
duly  ascertained.  He  even  wrote  the  pope,  in  terms  so  submissive 
that  they  now  look  more  like  the  words  of  a  craven,  than  those  of  a 
defiant  revolutionist.     Everywhere,  and  on  all  occasions,  he  held 


DR.    SEISS'    ESSAY.  1 87 

himself  as  ready  to  recant  as  he  had  been  to  assert,  provided  only, 
that  it  should  first  be  fairly  shown  that  he  held  or  taught  "contrary 
to  the  Scriptures,  the  councils,  and  the  fathers."  He  was  willing  to 
accept  any  German  bishop  as  his  judge,  and  to  abide  by  the  decision. 
He  ever  protested  that  he  never  meant  to  attack  or  injure  the  author- 
ity of  the  Roman  Church,  to  cause  disturbances  about  small  matters, 
or  to  refuse  obedience  in  anything  which  should  lawfully  be  required 
of  him.  And  even  when  condemned  and  excommunicated  by  the 
pope,  he  still  expressed  submissive  acknowledgment  of  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  and  earnestly  sought  to  maintain  his  fellowship  with 
it,  by  a  legitimate  appeal  to  a  general  council.  This  was  the  atti- 
tude at  the  Diet  of  Spires,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  and  on  all  occa- 
sions while  the  great  controversy  raged.  In  the  name  of  all  Luther- 
ans, the  Augsburg  Confession  proposed  and  agreed  that  the  whole 
Romish  jurisdiction  might  stand  and  would  be  humbly  obeyed,  pro- 
vided certain  usages  and  traditions  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God 
were  not  enforced.  Conference  after  conference  did  the  Lutherans 
seek  and  attend  with  a  view  to  adjust  the  trouble,  and  always  with  a 
spirit  at  antipodes  with  the  spirit  of  sect  and  schism.  They  were 
willing  to  do  everything,  and  bear  anything,  provided  only  that  they 
should  be  left  in  peace  and  quietness  to  hold,  preach  and  practice 
according  to  their  profound  convictions  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  the  true  Catholic  Church. 

But  this  proviso  did  not  suit  the  proud  conceit  and  usurped 
dominion  of  the  papacy.  And  because,  in  right  obedience  and 
loyalty  to  God  and  conscience,  our  fathers  could  not  consent  to  let 
go  the  Word  of  God,  and  would  not  debauch  themselves  any  more 
with  the  worship  of  saints  and  relics  of  dead  men,  nor  trust  in  any 
mediator  but  Jesus,  nor  allow  human  works,  payments  or  goodnesses 
as  entering  into  the  procuring  cause  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  Rome 
excommunicated  them,  by  cities,  nations  and  millions,  thrust  them 
away  from  her  fellowship,  and  delivered  them  over  to  her  intensest 
anathemas  forever. 

Thus  came  about  the  tremendous  dislocation ;  but  by  no  fault  of 
the  Reformers.  Rome  forced  the  issue,  and  made  the  decision,  and 
with  her  must  rest  the  blame  that  belongs  to  the  result.  The  one 
only  alternative  was,  either  to  let  the  eternal  and  saving  truth  of 
God  be  stifled  and  smothered  under  the  incrustations  of  damning 
falsehood  and  superstition,  allowing  the  race  of  man  to  drift  on  to 


1 88  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

perdition  without  the  light  God  in  mercy  gave  for  our  salvation,  or 
the  Churches  called  Lutheran  had  to  come  into  independent  being.  And 
with  this  as  the  one  distinct  (question  in  the  case,  is  there  a  true  man 
living  to  doubt  which  was  the  side  of  right?  As  the  authority  of 
God  is  above  popes — as  man's  obligation  to  truth  is  above  all  other 
claims — as  the  worth  of  a  pure  Gospel  is  above  all  man-made  regu- 
lations and  outward  order — as  self  sacrifice  for  the  truth's  sake  is 
above  sacrifice  of  the  truth  for  self's  sake, — so  great,  and  so  com- 
plete, is  the  justification  of  the  existence  of  our  Churches,  as  over 
against  Rome ;  the  Tractarians  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

As  remarked  in  several  of  the  essays  already  presented,  it  is  our 
lot  to  live  in  days,  and  in  a  land,  of  sects  and  denominations,  in 
which  altar  is  set  up  against  altar,  society  against  society,  and 
meeting  and  ministry  against  meeting  and  ministry,  begetting  the 
utmost  confusion  and  perplexity  to  simple  and  honest  inquirers, 
and  shamefully  distracting  and  weakening  the  whole  Protestant 
cause.  The  evil  of  this  state  of  things  is  deeply  felt  and  largely 
deplored.  It  is  seen  to  be  a  fruitful  cause  of  indifferentism,  and  a 
self-justifying  nothingarianism,  enervating  and  obliterating  the 
Church,  strengthening  the  hands  of  infidelity,  and  trampling  under 
foot  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Again  and  again,  the  evil  thing  has 
been  multiplied  by  attempts  to  cure  it,  and  the  anti-sectarians  have 
shown  themselves  the  greatest  makers  and  fosterers  of  sects.  Even 
the  unionism  and  undenominationalism  with  which  many  good- 
meaning  people  would  salve  it  over,  tend  only  to  encourage  it,  and 
to  make  it  appear  innocent.  That  there  is  great  wrong  in  it,  most 
agree  ;  but  the  sin  of  it  is  continually  being  lodged  at  the  wrong 
place,  and  those  most  adverse  to  it,  and  the  most  consistently  ar- 
rayed against  it,  are  generally  loaded  with  the  blame  for  it. 

In  this  babel  of  beliefs,  unbeliefs  and  non-beliefs,  the  Lutherans 
are  frequently  put  down  as  one  of  the  sects,  on  the  common  basis  of 
all  the  rest,  only  a  little  more  sectarian,  because  not  generally  so 
pliant  with  regard  to  the  thousand  goodishnesses  got  up  for  all  sects 
and  Churches  alike  to  take  hold  of  and  sustain.  And  just  here  there 
is  another  grand  mistake  and  misrepresentation,  which  needs  to  be 
pointedly  brought  out.  This  splitting  up  of  Christendom  into 
fragments  and  separatistic  fractions,  we  do  most  heartily  lament 
and  deplore  as  an  unspeakable  evil ;  but  we  distinctly  and  unquali- 
fiedly disclaim  all  responsibility  for  it.     The  breach  with  Rome  we 


I 


DR.    SEISS     ESSAY. 


189 


accept,  and  go  before  the  world,  before  angels,  and  before  God,  for 
our  justification  in  that  business.  Everything  was  done  that  could 
be  done,  but  Rome  would  not  in  any  sense  or  degree  tolerate  us 
without  a  surrender  of  the  evangelical  faith  of  God's  Word,  f'or 
the  old  and  everlasting  truth  we  were  made  a  separate  communion, 
not  by  our  secession,  but  by  Rome's  unwarranted  and  persistent 
excommunication.  We  were  thrust  out  by  a  monstrous  usurpation, 
and  there  was  no  other  help  for  the  Gospel  or  for  us. 

]iui  which  of  all  the  anta:;onizing  sects  or  parties  around  us  can 
plead  such  an  apology  for  their  separate  being?  The  Lutheran 
Churches  existed,  in  great  and  mighty  strength,  before  them.  The 
Lutheran  communion  was  born,  baptized,  confirmed,  and  had 
reached  its  sublime  majority,  before  any  of  these  bodies  had 
their  present  form  or  being.  Ere  they  were,  we  had  already  so 
fully  grasped  the  proper  evangelic  truth  and  life,  and  recovered 
and  defined  such  a  doctrinal  and  liturgical  basis  and  foundation  for 
the  conservation  of  the  pure  Church  and  wholesome  Christian 
growth  and  sanctification,  that  it  must  for  ever  remain  an  embar- 
rassing puzzle  to  all  subsequent  separatists  and  denominations  to  give 
just  and  Christian  answer  why  they  exist,  and  continue  to  maintain 
their  separatism.  Li  this  country,  something  must  indeed  be  al- 
lowed for  the  differences  of  nationality,  and  the  home  education  of 
the  different  classes  of  colonists  here  thrown  together.  It  also  may 
be  hard  to  find  out  a  j^ractical  cure  for  what  all  seem  to  lament. 
But,  when  it  comes  to  the  kernel  and  right  of  the  thing,  so  far  as  these 
separate  communions  have  any  true,  settled  and  saving  Christian 
faith,  or  any  just  title  to  be  called  true  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ,  it 
is  simply  and  only  because  they  have  accepted  the  teachings,  copied 
the  Confessions,  and  built  upon  the  foundations,  which  the  Luther- 
ans before  them  had  dug  out  of  the  papal  congest,  and  made  their 
own.  There  is  no  Episcopalianism,  no  Presbyterianism,  no  Con- 
gregationalism, no  Methodism,  and  no  other  kind  of  ism,  so  far  as 
unmistakably  grounded  on  the  Scriptures  of  God,  or  reconcilable 
with  the  orthodox  historic  faith  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  which 
really  needed  for  itself,  or  needs  now,  any  other  communion,  or 
establishment,  than  the  one  original  Protestant  Church,  which  we 
represent,  and  from  which  they  all,  directly,  or  indirectly,  derived 
the  essential  substance  of  all  the  Christian  doctrine  and  faith  they 
have.     Some  of  them  are  built  on  particular  forms  of  government, 


igO  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

some  on  particular  human  meihods,  some  on  particular  rites  and 
ceremonies,  or  modes  of  administering  divine  ordinances,  and  some 
on  mere  accidents ;  but  none  of  these  things  enter  properly  into 
the  being  and  legitimacy  of  the  Church.  They  have  ever  varied 
with  times,  countries  and  circumstances,  without  affecting  the  divine 
foundations  of  faith  and  salvation.  Some  of  them  are  more  desir- 
able and  edifying  than  others;  but  they  are  not  therefore  just 
grounds  on  which  to  erect  separate  and  antagonizing  communions. 
Because  they  are  not  essential,  therefore  some  argue  the  right  to 
exercise  their  own  pleasure  in  the  matter,  and  so  would  justify  sec- 
tarianism. But  the  true  bearing  is  exactly  in  the  contrary  direc- 
tion. Because  these  things  do  not  enter  into  the  essential  being  of 
the  Church,  therefore,  to  emphasize  them  in  such  way  as  to  make 
them  the  corner-stones  of  separate  and  antagonizing  communions, 
is  to  pervert  the  Gospel,  and  to  build  the  Church  of  God  on  what 
is  variable,  indifferent,  accidental,  provisional  and  human,  instead 
of  on  the  divine  verities  which  are  everywhere  and  always  the  same. 
That  which  determines  the  character,  legitimacy,  and  proper  Chris- 
tianity of  a  Church,  is  its  true,  clear,  rotund,  balanced  and  unmis- 
takable confession  of  the  doctrines  of  salvation  through  the  incar- 
nate Son  of  God,  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  and  contained  and 
verifiable  in  the  testimony  of  the  true  Catholic  Church  from  the 
beginning.  Where  this  already  is  and  lives,  whatever  other  diversi- 
ties exist,  or  particular  preferences  are  unmet,  ^/lere  is  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  in  its  just  and  sufficient  integrity ;  so  that  he 
who  dissents  and  separates  from  it,  to  set  up  an  opposing  commun- 
ion, thereby  makes  himself  guilty  of  sectarianism  and  schism. 
x\nd  with  whatever  pretexts  he  may  seek  to  cloak  and  embellish 
his  doings,  he  will  ever  try  in  vain  to  make  out  a  justification  for 
himself  from  these  Scriptures. 

We  do  not  say,  and  far  be  it  from  me  to  say,  that  saving  doc- 
trines of  Christ  are  nowhere  held  and  taught  but  in  the  Lutheran 
Churches  so  called.  We  know  to  the  contrary,  and  are  happy  to 
acknowledge  the  fact,  to  honor  the  truth  wherever  we  find  it,  and  to 
treat  as  Christians  all  who  prove  themselves  such.  Such  at  least  is 
my  case.  But  it  is  our  right  to  say,  on  the  clear  evidences  of  holy 
Scripture  and  historic  verity,  that  the  true  and  only  saving  doctrines 
of  Jesus  Christ  are  embraced,  held  and  taught  by  the  Lutheran 
Churches  and  Confessions,  fully,  purely,  and  without  stint  or  distor- 


DR.    SEISS'    ESSAY.  I9I 

tion ;  and  were  thus  held  and  taught  before  the  multitudinous  par- 
ties and  sects  about  us  had  a  being.  Nay,  this  also  may  be  added  in 
all  confidence,  that  if  salvation  cannot  be  securely  found  and  ob- 
tained in  the  Churches  called  Lutheran,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sal- 
vation. What  true  God  is  there  whom  our  Churches  do  not  confess 
and  worship;  or  false  god,  which  they  do  not  reject  and  despise? 
What  true  Scripture  of  God  is  there  which  they  do  not  receive  and 
teach,  or  false  scripture  which  they  do  not  cast  from  them  and  con- 
demn ?  What  true  Christ  is  there  who  is  not  the  centre  of  their 
Creed,  hope  and  trust ;  or  Anti-christ  against  whom  they  do  not 
warn  and  admonish  with  all  fidelity  ?  What  means  of  grace  have 
been  ordained  of  God  which  they  do  not  use  and  insist  on  having 
used;  or  what  substitutes  or  superadditions  devised  by  man,  which 
they  do  not  censure  and  oppose  ?  What  divine  promises  or  terms  of 
salvation  are  there,  which  they  do  not  put  before  men  for  their 
spiritual  comfort;  or  false  hopes  against  which  they  do  not  caution  ? 
What  genuine  Gospel  is  there  which  they  do  not  confess  and 
preach,  or  true  ministry  of  God  which  they  do  not  acknowledge,  or 
other  thing  entering  into  the  substance  of  Christianity  which  they 
do  not  accept  and  defend  ?  And  in  all  the  reforms  and  improve- 
ments by  which  men  have  thought  to  get  up  something  better,  more 
Scriptural,  more  effective,  where,  in  all  the  length  and  breadth  of  this 
earth,  can  be  found  a  more  thoroughly  tried  and  reliable  guide  and 
helper  to  the  full  truth  of  God,  a  sanctified  life,  and  eternal  salva- 
tion, than  the  system  of  faith  and  life  confessed  and  upheld  by  the 
Lutherans?  And  as  this  communion  of  believers  existed,  and  had 
spread  itself  out  among  the  nations,  before  any  of  our  modern  sects 
and  parties  were,  we  scorn  to  be  rated  as  one  of  them,  and  before 
God  most  solemnly  disclaim  all  share  in  the  unholy  business  of 
which  they  are  the  cherished  memorials.  If  men  will  accept  and 
honor  them  as  right,  legitimate  and  Cliristian,  and  thus  lend  them- 
selves, influence  and  means,  to  perpetuate  the  distractions  which  so 
weaken  and  disgrace  the  cause  of  evangelic  Christianity,  we  cannot 
say  them  nay;  but  on  them  be  the  burden  of  answering  for  it  to 
their  Maker  and  Judge  ;  for  we  have  no  part  nor  lot  in  the  matter. 

With  reference  to  the  more  particular  doctrines  of  our  Lutheran 
Confessions,  there  are  also  many  misunderstandings  and  misrepre- 
sentations abroad,  which  ought  of  right  to  be  touched.  Indeed, 
there  seems  to  be  an  incurable  obtuseness  in  some  people  to  com- 


192  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

preliend  what  Lutherans  hold  and  teach,  th-ough  there  is  not  another 
communion  in  the  world  which  has  so  fully,  exhaustively,  and  on 
all  points,  set  forth  its  doctrines,  as  the  Lutheran. 

On  the  great  and  all-important  subject  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
people  persist  in  misrepresenting  us,  and  often  to  the  great  damage 
of  their  own  clearness  of  faith,  and  consistent  apprehension  of 
salvation. 

The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  our  doctrines  concerning  the 
means  of  grace,  particularly  of  the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  People  wish  to  get  away  as  far  as  possible  from 
everything  which  they  think  smacks  of  Romanism,  and  by  their  un- 
guarded assumptions  disable  themselves,  so  that  they  cannot  see  the 
difference  between  our  pure  scriptural  teachings  and  the  monstrous 
perversions  and  abominations  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  With  our 
blessed  Lord,  wfe  teach  the  necessity  of  being  "  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit ;''  with  the  inspired  Paul,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  the 
application  of  salvation  ''  by  the  washing  (or  bath)  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;^'  and,  with  all  the  teachings  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  constantly  refer  to  Baptism  as  a  great  spirit- 
ual treasure ;  and  lo  !  we  are  charged  with  the  superstition  of  at- 
taching a  magic  charm  to  a  mere  outward  ceremony!  When  we 
speak  of  the  Word  as  an  earthly  vehicle  or  medium  in  and  through 
which  the  Saviour  communicates  Himself  and  His  salvation,  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  understanding  us ;  but  when  we  say  the  same  thing 
of  the  corresponding  "visible  Word" — of  the  Lord's  Supper — peo- 
ple exclaim  in  horror,  ' '  Transiibstantiation' ' — ' '  Consiibstantiation, 
— or  some  other  abomiaiation,  which  our  Confessions  distinctly  reject 
and  condemn,  and  all  our  theologians  repudiate.  The  old  lie  of  the 
sacramentarian  controversialists,  so  often  refuted  and  exposed,  which 
charges  the  monstrosity  of  consubstantiation  upon  our  invulnerable 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  we  had  hoped  was  effectually  buried, 
never  to  appear  again  in  any  author  worthy  of  respect ;  but,  alas,  I 
find  it  resurrected,  and  again  put  forth,  in  the  recent  volumes  on 
The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  to  the  great  discredit  of  their  author, 
who  certainly  ought  to  know  better,  if  he  does  not. 

And  even  among  professed  Lutherans  themselves,  from  one  cause 
or  another,  the  presentations  of  our  position  and  spirit  have  not  always 
been  as  consistent  and  just  as  they  should  have  been.  Everything 
with  which  man  has  to  do,  however  sacred  or  good,  will  show  the 


DR.    SEISS     ESSAY.  1 93 

traces  of  hi.s  weaknesses.  And  so  has  it  been  here.  There  have 
been,  and  there  still  are,  particular  schools  and  tendencies,  bearing 
the  Lutheran  name,  which  have  proven  about  as  sectarian  as  the 
sects,  some  in  the  way  of  alleged  devotion  to  the  faith,  and  some  in 
the  way  of  laxity  with  regard  to  it.  Like  the  Church  universal,  in 
the  earlier  times,  our  Churches  have  had  their  more  favorable  and 
their  less  favorable  ages,  sections  and  departments.  And  what  has 
been  in  the  past,  is  still  largely  represented  in  the  present.  There 
are  those  who  unfortunately  lose  sight  of  the  fact,  that  Lutheranism 
commenced  \\\i\\  a  A/ehinchfJion  ^.■?,  well  as  a  Luther;  while  others 
are  equally  oblivious  to  the  fact  that  it  embraced  a  Litther,  as  well 
as  a  Melanchthon.  Within  it,  and  of  it,  there  has  been  a  Helm- 
staedt  and  a  Halle,  as  well  as  a  Wittenberg  and  a  Leipsic;  but, 
at  the  same  time,  a  Wittenberg  and  a  Leipsic,  as  well  as  a  Helm- 
staedt  and  a  Halle. 

What  I  take  to  be  the  true  soul  and  spirit  of  our  Churches  is  not 
what  appears  in  any  one  of  these  tendencies,  past  or  present,  as  over 
against  the  other,  or  without  the  other;  but  the  one  interpenetrated, 
permeated  and  modified  by  the  other,  each  in  each,  in  one  living, 
golden  mean  of  all,  the  best  illustration  of  which  is  perhaps  to  be 
found  in  the  illustrious  intermediate  school  of  Jena.  Professed 
Lutherans  misrepresent  their  Confession,  largely  negative  it,  and 
compromise  their  cause,  by  sympathizing  too  freely  with  Calixtus, 
Horneius,  Dreir  and  Latermann ;  but  they  do  no  better  for  them- 
selves, or  for  the  Church,  when  they  propose  to  swear  every  body 
by  the  Consensus  Mepefitiis,  or  give  place  to  the  spirit  which  felt 
itself  constrained  to  bring  two  hundred  and  sixty-three  charges  of 
heretical  error  against  the  pure  and  heavenly-minded  Spener. 

But  I  cannot  now  enter  further  on  these  matters.  Perhaps,  in  the 
judgment  of  some,  I  have  not  myself  succeeded  in  making  the  right 
presentations.  But  what  I  have  written  I  have  written,  and  must 
abide  by  the  results. 

With  these  observations  I  submit  the  subject  to  those  who  are  to 
follow  me. 


194  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

REMARKS   OF   REV.  C.  W.  SCHAEFFER,  D.  D.  {General  Council.) 

Dr.  Seiss  has  said  that  the  Lutheran  Church  cannnot  be  charged 
either  with  heresy  or  with  schism ;  and  furthermore,  as  I  think  I 
understood,  that  there  is  no  evangehcal  doctrine  accepted  by  the 
Church  of  Christ  which  the  Lutheran  Church  does  not  confess,  and 
no  error  in  doctrine  rejected  by  tlie  Cliurcli  which  the  Lutheran 
Cliurch  does  not  condemn.  This  being  admitted,  and  I  beheve  it, 
what  value  ought  we  to  attach  to  the  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  ?  how  should  we  understand  and  represent  them  ? 

Not  long  ago  I  read  an  article  in  print,  that  ended  somewhat  in 
this  manner,  "We  believe  in  a  perfect  Bible,  in  a  perfect  forgiveness 
of  sin,  in  a  perfect  Saviour ;  but  we  have  no  idea  that  such  a  thing, 
as  a  perfect  creed  exists."  But  are  not  the  facts  such  that  we 
ought  to  recognize  Divine  guidance  in  the  preparation  of  our  Con- 
fessions, and  discountenance  insinuations  against  their  rehability  as 
Confessions  ? 

What  was  the  character  of  the  Reformation  itself?  Was  it  a 
Divine  work,  or  merely  or  chiefly  human?  No  doubt  we  will  all 
be  prompt  in  recognizing,  even  in  the  midst  of  all  its  human  in- 
strumentalities, the  presence,  the  controlling  influence  of  Divine 
wisdom  and  power  and  grace,  in  the  beginning  and  promoting  of 
that  great  work  of  the  Church. 

Now  when  the  time  came  for  the  Church  to  do  an  act  of  the 
very  highest  importance  for  itself  and  for  the  glory  of  its  Head 
and  of  His  truth,  that  is,  to  declare  its  answer  to  the  revelation  of 
the  Gospel,  and  to  confess  its  faith  in  the  Divine  word,  ought  we 
not  rather  to  believe  that  the  same  Divine  guidance  which  had 
been  granted  to  it  hitherto,  would  be  specially  near  and  positive  and 
active  in  the  execution  of  such  a  work  ?  The  promises  of  the  aid 
and  teachings  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  Word,  are  still 
in  force,  and  they  are  on  record  for  all  time.  Does  not  the  proper 
understanding  and  truthful  representation  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
then,  require  of  us  a  recognition  of  this  element  in  the  preparation 


DISCUSSION.  195 

of  her  Confessions?  Does  it  not  forbid  us  to  place  those  Confes- 
sions on  the  low  level  of  ordinary  human  productions,  which,  what- 
ever may  be  their  ability,  are  always  strongly  marked  by  human 
ignorance  and  infirmity? 

We  ought  rather  to  maintain,  that  the  Confessions,  as  Confes- 
sions and  as  far  as  they  go,  are  perfect,  true,  unerring  testimonies 
of  the  Divine  word,  and  may  be  safely  relied  upon. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.  {General  Synod.) 
It  is  possible  that  Dr.  Schaeffer  has  done  me  the  honor  of  referring 
to  something  that  I  have  said  and  printed.  At  least  I  have  used 
language  of  a  somewhat  similar  character.  If  I  am  mistaken,  both 
he  and  this  Diet  will  pardon  me  for  presuming  that  I  may  be  the 
person  referred  to.  I  did  say  in  print,  not  long  ago,  "  We  believe 
in  an  infallible  Bible,  an  infallible  Saviour,  but  an  infallible  Creed, 
and  an  infallible  Church,  we  do  not  believe  in,  whether  the  pretence 
is  set  up  in  the  General  Council  or  by  Romef  and  by  this  declara- 
tion I  am  ready  to  stand,  here  in  this  Diet,  and  everywhere.  I 
take  no  backward  step  from  this  position,  as  it  is  fundamental  to  Pro- 
testantism, as  well  as  to  genuine  Lutheranism.  There  is  but  one 
perfect  book,  but  one  infallible  record  of  Divine  truth, — the  inspired 
Word  of  God.  This  is  infallible  just  because  it  is  inspired,  and 
"holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
This  absolute  infallibility  is  true  only  of  the  Scriptures  as  contained 
in  the  originals.  We  do  not  affirm  it  of  any  translation,  ancient  or 
modern,  however  excellent.  These  translations  are  more  or  less 
imperfect,  and  are  subject  to  change  and  improvement  from  time  to 
time,  and  must  be  compared  with  the  infallible  originals  to  deter- 
mine their  merit.  They  may  answer  for  all  practical  purposes,  but 
it  would  be  absurd  to  set  up  a  claim  of  infallibility  for  any  version, 
as  Rome  has  done  for  the  Vulgate.  The  final  appeal  must  be  to  the 
original  inspired  Word.  If  this  be  true  of  any  and  every  translation 
of  the  Bible,  how  much  more  so  in  regard  to  any  production  of 
mere  men  ? 


ig6  '  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

It  is. of  tlie  Utmost  importance  that  we  understand  and  maintain 
the  trutli  in  this  respect.  Creeds  or  Confessions  are  merely  human 
productions,  and  everything  human  is  imperfect  and  falUble.  There 
is  no  infallibihty  in  Popes,  or  Councils,  or  the  makers  of  Creeds. 
Every  Creed,  from  the  Apostles'  down,  has  been  subjected  to  revis- 
ings  and  alterations.  The  Augsburg  Confession  underwent  changes 
and  improvements  until  nearly  the  last  hour  before  its  presentation 
to  the  Emperor  at  Augsburg ;  and  almost  immediately  afterwards, 
Melanchthon  continued  his  work  of  altering  and  trying  to  amend. 
At  present,  among  the  various  editions,  no  one  can  tell  what  was 
the  true  original  Augsburg  Confession.  We  have  editions  in  Latin 
and  German  varying  considerably,  and  we  can  only  approximate  to 
the  original  Augsburg  Confession.  Which  is  the  perfect,  infallible 
one?  The  case  of  different  editions  of  the  original  Scriptures  fur- 
nishes no  parallel,  for  there  we  know  where  to  look  for  infallibility. 

We  are  willing  and  ready,  according  to  our  humble  ability,  to 
advocate  and  defend  the  Augsburg  Confession,  over  against  other 
modern  confessions,  as  the  very  best  and  most  Scriptural  of  them 
all.  We  admire  its  truly  Catholic  and  Evangelical  character.  As  a 
Confession,  and  for  the  legitimate  purposes  of  a  Confession,  we  may 
be  justly  proud  of  it  as  our  own.  But  when  there  is  set  up  for  it  a 
claim,  which  we  believe  to  be  unwarrantable,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  very  character  of  a  Confession  of  Faith,  then  we  feel  bound  to 
utter  our  protest.  When  real  or  virtual  infallibility  is  claimed  for 
this  or  any  other  human  production  as  a  Confession  of  Faith,  to 
which  we  are  to  be  absolutely  bound,  as  we  are  to  the  Word  of  God, 
as  the  Rule  of  our  fliith,  we  must  proclaim  our  dissent.  On  this 
point  we  would  not  be  misunderstood,  and  we  are  glad  to  believe 
and  know  that  we  are  standing  on  firm  Lutheran  ground,^ 

1  Miiller,  in  the  "I/is/ori'ca/  Iiit7-odiictioii  "  to  his  edition  of  the  Symbolical 
Books,  says,  "  The  Church,  then,  does  not  wish  to  ascribe  to  her  Symbols  immut- 
able authority  ;  she  admits  that  some  one  might  discover  a  defect  in  them;  she 
finds  in  them  merely  a  temporary  expression  of  her  faith  ;  she  reserves  to  herself 


DISCUSSION.  197 

But  we  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Seiss  a  plain  question.  It  is  very 
ungracious,  and  imposes  an  unpleasant  task,  to  say  a  word  to  mar 
the  effect  of  the  very  forcible  and  eloquent  address  to  which  we 
have  just  listened.  To  most  of  it  we  could  say  yea  and  amen.  We 
believe  that  as  a  defence  of  the  great  Reformation  against  the  accu- 
sations of  Rome  and  certain  Anglicans,  it  was  triumphant.  The 
Lutheran  Church  cannot  be  justly  charged  with  schism  in  separating 
from  Rome.  We  believe  that  before  men  and  angels  and  God,  she 
stands  fully  justified  in  her  separate,  distinct  existence.  She  is  not 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  because  she  could  not  remain  there. 
She  was  thrust  out,  and  obedience  to  conscience  and  the  Word  of 
God,  demanded  she  should  no  longer  submit  to  corruption  and 
tyranny.     We  can  endorse  all  that  was  said  on  this  point  thus  far. 

We  can  go  a  step  further.  We  hold  that  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion is  truly  a  catholic  and  liberal  Confession  ;  and  interpreted  as 
it  was  by  its  author,  there  would  have  been  little  excuse  for  the  ex- 
istence and  multiplication  of  other  Creeds  and  other  denomina- 
tions. With  the  due  exercise  of  charity,  the  Augsburg  Confession 
might  have  furnished  the  basis  of  a  united  Protestantism,  as  it  has 
since  been  confessed  by  different  nationalities  and  different  denom- 
inations. 

But  the  question  I  desire  to  ask  is  this :  Has  not  the  Lutheran 
Church,  by  the  adoption  of  a  very  extended  confessional  system, 
including  explanations  of  disputed  points  among  evangelical  Chris- 
tians, and  making  a  subscription  to  this  system  a  condition  of  re- 

expressly  the  privilege  of  improving  Ihem,  of  completing  or  of  extending,  as 
occasional  necessity  requires."  Any  number  of  authorities  might  be  cited  to 
the  same  purpose.  It  is  a  lame  attempt  to  meet  the  plain  question,  to  set  up  the 
plea  that  for  an  individual  to  object  to  the  inlallibility  of  the  Confession,  is  to 
claim  infallibility  for  himself,  and  to  set  up  his  individual  infallibility  against 
the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  On  this  principle,  no  member  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  would  ever  doubt  the  Papal  infallibility—  for  to  do  so  would  be  to  assert 
his  own. 


198  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

maining  in  the  Church,  furnished  other  denominations  a  good  and 
suiificient  excuse  for  their  separate  organizations?  Cannot  other 
denominations  plead  the  same  excuse  in  justification  for  their  exist- 
ence outside  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  that  Lutherans  plead  against 
Rome  ?  True,  they  may  not  have  been  thrust  out,  but  was  not 
their  remaining  in  made  impossible,  except  at  the  sacrifice  of  con- 
scientious convictions  of  truth  and  duty  ? 

We  do  not  wish  to  quibble  or  to  raise  doubtful  questions,  but  to 
deal  with  plain  facts.  Take  as  an  illustration  the  action  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  in  1580,  in  adopting  the  entire  Book  of  Concord. 
There  were  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  then  and  since,  in  and 
out  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  who  could  not  and  would  not  sub- 
scribe this  Book.  There  have  been  venerable  men  in  the  Minister- 
ium  of  Pennsylvania,  whose  names  have  been  mentioned  with  honor 
as  Lutherans  on  the  floor  of  this  Diet,  who  have  declared  them- 
selves willing  to  endure  any  sufferings  rather  than  subscribe  to 
everything  in  these  Symbolical  Books.  There  are  things  there  which 
do  not  constitute  any  part  of  genuine  Catholic  Lutheranism,  and  yet 
which  have  been  imposed,  at  some  times  and  in  some  places,  as  a 
condition  of  remaining  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  cannot  and 
will  not  be  questioned  in  this  Diet,  that  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  as  learned,  honest,  and  godly  men,  as  the  Church  has  ever 
known  in  any  age,  have  not  found  themselves  able  to  accept  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Lutheran  faith.  It  would  be  useless  to  call  the 
roll  of  illustrious  scholars,  learned  divines,  devoted  missionaries, 
and  self-sacrificing  laborers  in  every  department,  who  have  proved 
their  sincerity  and  devotion  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  by  evidence 
which  challenges  our  admiration.  No  man  can,  without  an  audacity 
of  which  few  are  possessed,  deny  the  intelligence,  or  learning,  or 
piety,  or  sincerity,  of  the  hosts  of  great  and  good  men  in  the  other 
denominations  of  Christendom.  This  is  not  even  disputed  by  the 
most  zealous  advocates  of  Lutheranism. 

Now,  I  ask  if  the  exclusion  of  these  men  from   the    Lutheran 


DISCUSSION.  199 

Church  does  not  give  them  the  same  ground  for  a  separate  denom- 
inational existence,  that  we  claim  for  ourselves?  Cannot  they, 
before  men,  and  angels  and  God,  justify  themselves  for  not  being 
in  the  Lutheran  Church?  Have  we  any  right  to  set  up  a  rule  that 
excludes  them,  and  then  to  condemn  them  because  they  do  not 
choose  to  do  violence  to  their  consciences,  and  profess  what  they 
cannot  believe?  It  is  egregious  trifling  to  say  that  they  were  not 
compelled  to  take  a  position  outside  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  If 
we  admit  their  honesty,  they  simply  acted  as  honest  and  God-fear- 
ing men.  They  have  done  what  every  man's  conscience  must  ap- 
prove. And  they  have  not  been  left  without  evidence  of  favor  and 
approval  from  above. 

I  have  asked  this  question  because  it  goes  directly  to  the  heart  of 
this  matter  of  denominationalism.  It  demands  to  know  what  share 
we  have  in  this  work,  and  whether  the  course  some  insist  on  as  a 
test  of  genuine  Lutheranism,  is  not  fraught  with  all  the  evils  of 
division  and  schism  in  the  Lutheran  Church  and  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  ? 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  C.  P.  KRAUTII,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.     [Geueral  Council.) 

Dr.  Krauth  said  that  the  point  made  by  Dr.  Schaeffer,  as  against 
the  position  taken  by  Dr.  Brown,  is  very  important.  Dr.  Brown 
has  totally  failed  to  mark  the  real  question,  which  is  not,  whether 
the  Lutheran  Church  is  infallible,  for  all  admit  that  she  is  not,  but 
whether  she  has  in  fact  failed.  An  infallible  rule  does  not  make  in- 
fallible interpreters,  but  it  protects  those  who  use  it  aright,  from  fail- 
ure. It  is  not  the  infallibility  of  men,  but  the  power  of  God's 
Word  to  produce  clear,  unmistaken  convictions  on  the  part  of  those 
who  use  it  as  it  directs,  on  which  we  rest  our  claim  that  the  Church 
may  reach  truth  without  any  intermingling  of  error  in  faith ;  and  by 
the  comparison  of  our  confessions  with  this  Word,  and  by  the  con- 
formity with  the  Word  thus  established,  we  reach  the  conclusion  that 
she  has  not  erred.      Infallibility  and  failure  are  not  the  only  suppo- 


200  FREE   LUTHERAN    DIET. 

sitions  possible.  There  is  a  third  supposition — that  though  there  be 
falUbihty,  there  has  not  been  actual  failure. 

In  the  minute  method  of  marking  wherein  the  infallibility  of  the 
original  text  consists,  it  might  consistently  have  been  added  that  the 
Rule  of  Faith  is  the  Word,  as  written  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  sacred 
penmen.  These  manuscripts  have  vanished  for  ages.  No  copies 
known  to  us  approach  them  by  several  centuries.  The  Word  as  the 
Holy  Spirit  gave  it  is  infallible,  but  the  transcribers,  the  printers,  the 
editors,  are  not.  In  Dr.  Brown's  mode  of  construction  we  have  not, 
in  fact,  an  infallible  rule  of  faith,  but  only  fallible  manuscripts  of  it, 
no  two  of  which  absolutely  agree.  Nor  does  he  seem  to  realize  the 
real  dishonor  put  in  terms  of  honor  on  the  Word,  which,  infallible 
itself,  is  either  the  generator  of  constant  failures,  or  fails,  of  neces- 
sity, to  prevent  them.  That  is  an  empty  vine  which  brings  forth 
fruit  only  for  itself  It  is,  indeed,  an  extraordinary  mode  of  de- 
fending the  sufficiency  of  the  Word,  a  book  which,  according  to 
him,  has  an  infallible  sense,  in  which  those  Avho  use  it  are  infalli- 
bly mistaken,  or  at  least  can  never  be  sure  they  are  right,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  fallible  themselves.  Our  Church  holds  that  the  very  ob- 
ject of  this  infallible  book,  is  to  correct  and  to  prevent  the  errors 
into  which  fallible  men  fall  without  it.  It  is  an  infallible  book, 
meant  to  prevent  failures.  And  as  a  rule  is  actualized  only  as  men 
take  its  meaning  into  their  minds  and  hearts,  the  truth  infallible  as 
it  lies  in  the  Word,  is  transmuted  into  possible  error  in  the  very 
act  of  reception  by  fallible  man,  alike  in  reading  the  originals,  when 
he  translates  it  himself,  or  in  reading  the  translations  of  others. 
It  is  a  view  which  annihilates  all  possibility  of  an  assured  faith,  and 
is  as  conclusive  against  the  certitude  of  the  doctrines  which  Dr. 
Brown  considers  necessary,  as  against  those  he  would  leave  open.  It 
leaves  all  opinions,  and  allows  of  no  faith. 

Dr.  Brown  seems  to  confound  those  changes  in  creeds  which  am- 
plify, and  defend,  and  state  more  felicitously  the  faith,  to  prevent 
change  in  it   or  misunderstanding  of  it,  with  those  whose  object 


DISCUSSION.  201 

would  be  to  deny  faith  once  confessed.  The  faith  confessed  at 
Augsburg  was  fixed  before  tlie  Diet  was  called.  The  abstract  in  the 
XVII  Articles  of  Luther,  which  was  laid  as  the  basis  of  the  doctrinal 
part  of  it,  sets  forth  in  all  respects  the  same  faith.  All  the  labor  of 
the  Confession  was  directed  to  perfecting -not  the  doctrine,  for 
that  was  fixed — but  the  form.  Mclanchthon  was  so  great  a  precisian 
in  style  that  he  touched  and  retouched  everything  to  the  time  of 
his  death.  There  is  no  impossibility  and  no  difficulty  in  determin- 
ing what  is  the  "true  original  Augsburg  Confession,"  in  any  sense 
in  which  we  are  practically  interested  in  it  as  a  standard.  In  the 
Latin,  there  is  the  first  edition  of  1530,  edited  by  Melanchthon  him- 
self, while  the  Diet  was  still  sitting,  and  now  incorporated  in  all 
editions  of  the  Book  of  Concord.  In  German  we  have  the  first 
edition  of  the  same  year,  edited  by  Melanclithon  during  the  sitting 
of  the  Diet.  There  are  nine  known  manuscripts  of  the  Latin  and 
twelve  of  the  German,  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  Lutheran 
States  and  cities.  The  edition  of  the  German  in  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, is  from  the  Mentz  copy  in  the  Protocol  of  the  Empire.  Twenty- 
one  manuscripts,  seven  unauthorized  editions,  one  edition  in  each 
language  by  Melanchthon  himself,  all  of  the  year  1530,  are  collated, 
and  thus  in  the  hands  of  scholars,  to  settle  the  precise  text  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  We  can  ask  with  far  more  force,  which 
among  the  various  editions  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  is  the  true 
original  New  Testament?  We  have  editions  varying  by  many  thou- 
sands of  stylistic  minutenesses,  and  we  can  only  approximate  the  or- 
iginal text,  which  is  the  perfect,  infallible  Rule  of  faith.  And  yet  one 
ignorant  of  the  facts  might  suppose  that  we,  who  have  no  practical 
difficulty  whatever  about  the  Biblical  text,  are  quite  at  sea  about  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  however  willing  we  might  be  to  ac- 
cept it,  no  man  can  tell  us  where  it  is,  or  what  it  is;  when  in  fact 
there  is  scarcely  a  great  document  of  ecpial  antiquity  whose  text  we 
can  settle  by  so  many  direct  vouchers.  We  know  that  the  faith  of 
the  Rule  is  so  inwrought  in  the  Rule,  that  the  mere  textual  differ- 
ences do  not  affect  the  result.  The  faith  of  the  New  Testament  is 
14 


202  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  same  in  the  Sinai  tic  Uncial  and  the  latest  Cursives,  in  the  first  of 
Erasmus,  and  the  last  of  Tischendorf.  And  the  faith  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  is  the  same  in  every  edition,  Latin  and  German, 
which  pretends  to  be  the  Confession  as  actually  read  June  25th, 
1530.  The  deliberate  changes  or  corruption  of  either  the  Rule  or 
the  Confession  are  very  different,  and  when  we  see  evidences  of  them, 
we  should  at  once  throw  aside  the  whole  book,  whether  it  pretends 
to  be  Scripture  or  Confession. 

Sectarianism,  not  satisfied  with  open  warfare  against  our  Church, 
endangered  it  yet  more  for  political  reasons,  by  pretences  of  con- 
formity with  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  "  interpreted  by  its  author," 
meaning  Melanchthon,  who  yet  was  not  its  author  in  any  respect 
which  gave  him  a  right  to  change  it,  and  whose  interpretation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Confession  when  in  1530  he  composed  it,  differed  in 
no  respect  from  that  of  Luther.  The  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession is  that  which  those,  who  presented  it  in  1530  then  designed, 
it  to  express ;  and  any  change  from  f/iaf  meaning,  by  whomsoever 
made,  is  not  an  interpretation  of  the  Confession,  but  a  perversion 
of  it. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  grew  out  of  the  struggle  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  for  her  very  life.  So  far  from  originating  the  divisions  in  Prot- 
estant Christendom,  it  came  after  the  organization  of  all  the  Reformed 
Churches.  //  was  not  at  Augsburg  to  frighten  the  Zwinglians  and 
Tetrapolitans  from  union  with  us  in  1530.  The  Basel  Confession  of 
1534,  the  Helvetic  of  1536,  the  Zurich  of  1545,  the  Genevan  Cat- 
echism of  1541,  the  Zurich  Consensus  of  1549,  the  French  Confes- 
sion of  1559,  the  Confession  of  the  Netherlands  of  1561,  the  Scotch 
of  1568,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  of  1562,  the  Second  Helvetic  of 
1566,  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  o>f  1562 — 
surely  these,  and  the  Churches  which  stood  under  them,  did  not  owe 
their  existence  to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  which  did  not  appear 
till  1580.  The  doctrinal  objections  to  the  Formula  of  Concord 
are  at  their  root  always  objections  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as 


1 


DISCUSSION.  203 

an  intelligent  ex  animo  reception  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  at 
its  root  always  a  virtual  reception  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  The 
Formula  of  Concord  originated  no  sects.  It  saved  the  Lutheran 
Church  and  the  Reformation  from  being  swamped  by  them. 

There  is  an  extraordinary  want  of  consistency  in  the  opponents 
of  the  Book  of  Concord.  Sometimes  they  talk  as  if  the  Lutheran 
Church  were  so  rigidly  bound  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  exclu- 
sively, that  the  recognition  of  anything  beside  would  be  inconsistent. 
Yet  Avhen  it  suits  them  they  claim  the  largest  liberty  for  the  Church 
to  alter,  cut  down,  add  to,  substitute — an  illimitable  right  to  make 
and  change  creeds.  They  make  a  fetich  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, idolizing  it  (in  phrase)  one  day,  and  claiming  the  next  day  the 
right  to  a  new  fetich,  whenever  they  want  it,  and  to  make  any 
changes  they  please  in  the  old  one ;  and  this,  they  tell  us,  is  the  Lu- 
theran position  in  regard  to  our  Church  creeds.  The  denial  of  this 
they  represent  as  Symbolism,  the  putting  of  the  creed  on  the  level 
of  Scripture.  But  in  this  whole  matter  they  start  with  confounding 
very  distinct  things— the  faith  itself,  the  divine  doctrine,  and  the 
particular  confessions  of  it  in  their  individual  style  and  method. 
A  pure  Church  can  have  but  one  faith ;  that  faith  makes  her  pure ; 
losing  it  she  loses  her  purity,  she  loses  herself;  a  pure  faith  once  is 
a  pure  faith  forever.  The  ages  cannot  touch  it,  nor  change  it.  The 
Qiurch  may  express  that  faith  with  greater  clearness ;  she  may  with- 
draw what  is  less  full,  and  substitute  what  is  more  full,  or  may  add 
without  withdrawing.  She  may  give  ofificially  an  explanation  of  a 
creed,  to  prevent  mistake  or  correct  misstatement,  but  the  faith  itself 
she  cannot  change.  The  faith  is  older  than  the  creed.  The  pure 
creed  is  begotten  of  the  pure  faith.  As  the  faith  has  life  in  itselt",  it 
gives  to  the  creed  to  have  life  in  itself.  Hence  a  true  creed  once, 
is  a  true  creed  forever,  and  the  Church  can  only  substitute  another 
for  it,  to  express  the  foith  of  the  old  creed  in  a  more  perfect  form. 
The  new  pure  creed  is  then  not  the  death  of  the  old,  but  its  resur- 
rection— its  glorification.     But  old  or  new,  the  true  creed  is  not  the 


204  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

rival  of  the  Scriptures.  All  its  glory  is  secondary  and  derivative. 
But  because  the  Word  is  unmixed  truth,  the  Confession,  though 
men's  hands  have  made  it,  may  lift  something  which  is  most  surely 
from  that  ocean  and  of  it.  The  purest  creed  is  not  the  ocean  ;  it  is 
but  a  golden  bowl;  but  that  which  fills  it  comes  from  the  ocean,  and 
shares  in  the  purity  of  its  source. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  SEISS,  D.  D.     {General  Cotincil.) 

Dr.  Seiss  said  that  he  had  no  wish  to  protract  the  discussion,  and 
would  not  enter  upon  the  points  suggested.  He  would  only  remark, 
respecting  the  questions  of  Dr,  Brown,  that  if  the  several  things 
stated  in  the  Essay  were  carefully  considered  together,  especially  the 
statements  in  the  concluding  sections,  he  thought  a  sufficient  answer, 
so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  could  readily  be  deduced.  He  had 
given  it  as  his  belief  that  there  were  times  and  places  in  the  general 
Lutheran  household,  in  which  attitudes  were  assumed  which  he  did 
not  undertake  to  justify,  and  exhibitions  made,  in  opposite  direc- 
tions, which  he  considered  misrepresentations.  If  the  Lutheran 
cause  were  to  be  judged  and  rated  after  these,  there  would  be  more 
show  for  certain  dissenting  opponents  and  separatistic  antagonisms. 
He  had  reasoned  on  the  inner  right  of  the  thing,  and  fully  admitted 
the  modifying  force  of  external  facts  and  circumstances  in  some 
cases.  The  weaknesses  of  men  are  always  present,  and  often  have 
something  of  an  excusing  influence,  even  in  unjustifiable  proceed- 
ings; but  temporary  and  provisional  excusableness,  is  a  differ- 
ent matter  from  a  thorough,  permanent,  and  justifiable  principle. 
Many  things  may  be,  for  the  time  and  under  the  circumstances, 
excused,  which  in  principle  and  right,  especially  if  persevered 
in  when  the  special  stress  has  disappeared,  cannot  be  justified, 
and  are  quite  without  any  solid  basis  on  which  to  rest.  The 
Lutheran  severance  from  Rome,  so  far  as  respected  the  Luth- 
erans, was,  and  still  is,  fully  justifiable,  on  the  broadest  and 
deepest   principles  of  faith   and  righteousness;   but  the   Lutheran 


DISCUSSION.  205 

churches,  as  a  whole,  or  in  any  way  to  make  them  unitedly 
responsible,  have  never  given  cause  for  antagonizing  communions, 
except  in  so  far  as  those  communions  take  from  or  add  to  the  one 
only  faith  of  the  true  Catholic  Church.  Adopting  that  with  Luth- 
erans, people  become  Lutherans,  and  are  at  fault  for  maintaining 
church  opposition  to  Lutherans  ;  and  in  so  far  as  people  do  not  hold 
that  faith  with  Lutherans,  they  are  at  fault  as  Christians,  and  are 
really  errorists  and  sects,  who  elect  to  abide  by  their  own  opinions 
against  the  true  Catholic  Church.  That  they  do  it  in  honest  sincerity, 
not  rightly  understanding  what  they  do,  may  modify  our  judgment 
of  their  guilt,  but  not  our  judgment  of  their  error. 


FIFTH    SESSION. 


December  29TH,  2:30  p.  M. 
Prayer   by  Rev.    A.  M.  Whetstone,  of  Somerset.      The   eighth 
paper  was  then  read. 

THE  CHARACTERISTICS   OF  THE  AUGSBURG 
CONFESSION. 

BY    REV.   F.  W.   CONRAD,    D.  D.,    PHILADELPHIA. 

IN  the  ongoing  of  Providence  and  under  the  peculiar  exigencies 
that  have  arisen  in  the  Christian  Church,  creeds  or  confessions 
of  faith  have  been  originated,  promulgated  and  adopted,  by  individ- 
uals, churches,  cities,  states  and  countries.  These  confessions  are 
numerous,  and  differ  from  each  other  in  their  length,  doctrinal 
statements,  and  ecclesiastical  principles.  These  differences  consti- 
tute the  characteristics  by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  each 
other,  and  furnish  at  the  same  time  the  basis  for  their  division  into 
general  and  particular  classes.  Some  of  these  confessions  are, 
however,  so  peculiarly  constituted,  that  they  form  a  class  by  them- 
selves, and  among  such  the  Augsburg  Confession  stands  pre-emi- 
nent. This  will,  we  trust,  become  manifest  from  its  characteristics, 
which  we  propose  to  present  for  your  consideration,  as  the  subject 
assigned  us  on  this  occasion. 

In  order,  however,  to  understand  the  characteristics  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  the  character  of 
the  persons  who  took  part  in  its  formation,  as  well  as  the  circum- 
stances and  influences  under  which  it  originated.  The  work  to  be 
accomplished  was  a  momentous  one.  No  general  creed  had  been 
adopted  for  a  thousand  years.  The  historic  sense  of  the  CEcumeni- 
cal  creeds  had  been  perverted,  and  they  were  made  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  error.  The  exigencies  of  the  Church  called  for  the  origina- 
tion of  a  creed  adapted  to  the  crisis  that  had  arisen  in  her  history. 
And  the  Confessors  of  Augsburg  were  raised  up  and  called  by  the 
Providence  of  God  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,  through  the  prepa- 
ration and  presentation  of  their  great  Confession. 

(206) 


I 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  20/ 

A  literary  production  receives  its  peculiarities  from  the  i<leal  of 
its  composer,  and,  in  like  manner,  did  the  Augsburg  Confession  re- 
ceive its  characteristics  from  the  theological  opinions,  the  ecclesias- 
tical principles,  and  the  personal  traits  of  character  of  its  authors 
and  signers.  Our  limits  constrain  us,  however,  to  confine  ourselves 
to  a  simple  enumeration  of  the  principal  traits  of  character  exhibited 
by  the  Confessors.  They  were  distinguished  by  fervent  piety,  by 
heroic  adherence  to  truth,  by  conscientious  fidelity  to  their  convic- 
tions, by  a  spirit  of  toleration,  by  moderate  views  respecting 
churchliness,  and  by  sincere  devotion  to  the  preservation  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  In  view  of  the  significance  and  relative  im- 
portance of  the  last-mentioned  trait,  we  shall  devote  a  little  space 
to  its  presentation. 

The  Confessors  accepted  the  articles  of  the  (Ecumenical  creeds, 
declaring  the  existence  and  perpetuity  of  one  holy  catholic  Church, 
consisting  of  the  "body  of  true  believers  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
who  have  but  one  gospel,  one  Christ,  the  same  Baptism  and  Holy 
Supper,  and  who  are  ruled  by  one  Holy  Spirit,  although  they  have 
different  ceremonies."  In  this  Cliurch  they  were  born,  baptized 
and  confirmed,  and  in  it  they  desired  to  live,  labor  and  die.  Dis- 
sensions had  occurred  in  it ;  and  they  came  to  Augsburg  to  consult 
about  the  best  manner  of  suppressing  them.  They  foresaw  the 
evils  of  schism,  and  labored  to  heal  the  breaches  of  Zion.  They 
anticipated  and  deplored  the  consecpiences  of  separation,  and  left 
no  means  untried,  consistent  with  the  will  of  God  and  the  dictates 
of  conscience,  to  prevent  it.  They  professed  true  loyalty  to  Christ, 
and  claimed  the  rights  conferred  upon  all  believers  by  the  Word  of 
God.  They  were  not  schismatics  nor  separatists,  but  advocates  of 
Christian  and  ecclesiastical  union.  They  declared  that  they  had 
neither  formed  a  new  sect  nor  left  the  Church,  and  protested, 
through  their  Confession,  that  they  could  not  justly  be  condemned 
as  errorists,  nor  excluded  from  the  communion  of  tlie  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church.  They  were  not  ready  to  strike  a  truce  with  error,  and 
extend  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  heretics.  They  realized  the 
necessity  as  well  as  the  duty  of  tolerating  differences  of  opinion  on 
minor  points,  and  their  Confession  itself  presents  the  basis  upon 
which,  in  their  judgment,  church  fellowship  and  cooperation 
might  be  maintained.  Indeed,  to  prevent  the  dismemberment  of 
the  Catholic  and  schism  in  the  Evangelical  Church,  was  the  object 


I 


208  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

of  all  their  conferences  and  diets,  colloquies  and  discussions  with 
the  Romanists  in  the  earlier,  and  with  their  fellow  Protestants  in 
the  later,  periods  of  the  Reformation.  While,  therefore,  we  are 
called  upon  to  give  due  weight  to  the  authority  of  the  Confessors  of 
Augsburg,  we  must  not  forget  that  they  were  human,  possessed  of 
like  passions  with  ourselves,  encompassed  with  peculiar  temptations, 
perplexed  with  formidable  difficulties,  and  liable  to  err  in  judgment, 
and  to  make  mistakes  in  deciding  the  numerous  and  diversified 
questions  submitted  to  them.  Fallible  themselves,  human  fallibility 
must  necessarily  attach  to  their  Confession ;  but  distinguished  by 
the  traits  of  character  just  enumerated,  and  directed  by  the  Word, 
Spirit  and  Providence  of  God,  they  were  delivered  from  the  delu- 
sions of  Romish  error,  and  led  to  the  discovery  of  "  the  truth  as  it 
is  in  Jesus,"  and  to  the  confession  of  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints." 

The  Augsburg  Confession  did  not,  like  Jonah's  gourd,  spring  up 
in  a  night,  but  was  the  growth  of  an  age.  It  appeared  in  the  blade 
at  Marburg,  developed  the  stalk  at  Swabach  and  Torgau,  and  bore 
the  full  corn  at  Augsburg.  It  was  not  the  work  of  a  single  individual, 
but  the  product  of  the  joint  efforts  and  c  ommon  counsels  of  many 
The  part  taken  in  its  preparation  by  some  was  more,  and  that  of 
others  less  conspicuous  and  influential. 

Luther  was  the  chief  among  the  Confessors.  His  leadership  was 
recognized,  and  his  influence  was  everywhere  manifest  in  the  work 
of  the  Reformation.  This  was  strikingly  illustrated  at  Augsburg. 
For  personal  and  political  reasons  he  remained  at  Coburg,  but 
although  absent  from  Augsburg  in  body,  he  was,  nevertheless,  pres- 
ent in  spirit.  He  had  written  the  Marburg,  and  taken  the 
principal  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  Swabach  and  Torgau 
articles,  which  served  Melanchthon  as  a  basis  and  model  in  the 
arrangement  and  composition  of  the  Confession.  Communication 
was  established  by  couriers,  between  Coburg  and  Augsburg,  and  a 
correspondence  conducted  between  Luther,  Melanchthon  and  the 
Elector  John,  of  Saxony.  His  opinions  and  advice  were  thus 
sought  and  given,  in  the  determination  of  some  of  the  perplex- 
ing questions  submitted  to  the  Confessors  before  and  during  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Diet.  On'  the  nth  of  May,  the  Confession  itself,  in 
the  first  draft  of  its  completed  form,  was  sent  to  him  by  the  Elector, 
accompanied  with  a  letter  requesting  him  to  give  it  a  thorough  ex- 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  2O9 

amination  and  revision,  and  to  return  it  with  such  changes  and  addi- 
tions as  he  thought  proper  to  make.  He  sent  it  back  on  the  15th 
of  May,  with  the  statement  that  he  had  read  it  from  beginning 
to  end,  that  it  pleased  him  exceedingly  well,  and  that  he  had  made 
no  changes  in  it  because  he  did  not  know  how  he  could  improve  it. 

From  the  time  the  Confession  was  first  sent  to  Luther  on  the  nth 
of  May,  until  the  time  of  its  presentation  to  the  Emperor  on  the 
25th  of  June,  it  underwent  many  and  various  changes,  and  appeared 
in  different  forms  of  completeness  in  the  successive  stages  of  its 
composition.  And  in  this  improved  form  it  was  sent  to  Luther  be- 
tween the  2 2d  of  May  and  the  2d  of  June,  and  again  received  his 
unqualified  approval' 

Melanchthon  was  the  theologian  of  the  Reformation  and  the 
teacher  of  Germany.     He  was  selected  by  common  consent  to  pre- 

1  The  correctness  of  this  statement  was  called  into  question  at  the  Diet,  and 
the  authority  on  which  it  was  based  called  for.  We  accordingly  refer  to  the 
statements  made  by  Melanchthon  in  his  letter  to  Luther  of  May  22,  and  in  the 
Preface  to  his  Body  of  Christian  Doctrine,  and  to  Luther's  letter  to  Melanch- 
thon of  June  3,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Krauth  in  his  'Conservative  Reformation.' 

According  to  the  statement  made  above,  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  first 
draft  of  its  completed  form,  left  the  hands  of  Luther  on  the  15th  of  May.  On 
the  22d  of  May,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther:  "  In  the  Apology,  we  daily 
change  many  things.  ******!  wish  you  would  run  over  the  Ar- 
ticles of  Faith  :  if  you  think  there  is  no  defect  in  them,  we  will  treat  of  the 
other  points  as  we  best  may."      Con.  Ref.,  p.  227. 

On  the  3d  of  June,  Luther  wrote  to  Melanchthon  :  "  I  yesterday  (June  2)  re- 
read your  Apology  entire,  with  care,  and  itpleasesme  exceedingly."  //;.,  p.  234. 

In  giving  a  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  Preface  to  his  Body  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  Melanchthon  refers  to  the  preparation  and  presentation  of 
the  complete  form  of  the  Confession  as  follows: 

1.  "I  brought  together  the  princijial  points  of  the  Confession,  embracing 
pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the  doctrines  of  our  Churches." 

2.  "  I  assumed  nothing  to  myself,  for  in  the  presence  of  the  Princes  and 
other  officials,  and  of  the  preachers,  it  was  discussed  and  determined  upon  in 
regular  course,  sentence  by  sentence." 

3.  "  The  complete  form  of  the  Confession  was  subsequently  sent  to  Luther, 
who  wrote  10  the  Princes,  that  he  had  read  the  Confession  and  approved  it." 

4.  ''  After  this,  before  the  Emperor  Charles,  in  a  great  assemblage  of  the 
Princes,  this  Confession  was  read."     Ih.,  p.  233. 

In  support  of  the  truth  of  these  statements,  he  added  :  "  That  these  things 
were  so  done,  the  Princes,  and  other  learned  and  honest  men, _)'£>/  living,  well 
remember." 


210  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

pare  the  declaration  of  the  Protestants.  For  the  accomplishment  of 
this  work,  he  was  eminently  qualified.  He  entered  upon  it  with  a 
realizing  sense  of  its  responsibilities,  and  under  the  divine  guidance 
composed  the  great  Confession.  This  was  his  symbolical  master- 
piece. In  its  style,  statements  and  discussions,  it  bears  the  marks 
of  his  taste,  learning  and  literary  skill,  and  in  its  tone  and  spirit,  it 
is  pervaded  by  his  constitutional  amiability  and  kindness,  as  well  as 
by  his  Christian  moderation,  forbearance  and  catholicity. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,,  that  the  part  taken  by  Melanchthon,  in 
the  preparation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  was  no  less  significant 
and  valuable  than  that  contributed  by  Luther.  With  respect  to  its 
matter,  its  authorship  maybe  ascribed  to  Luther  ;  determined  by  its 
form,  it  must  be  accredited  to  Melanchthon.  It  may,  therefore,  be 
justly  divided  between  them — Melanchthon  fashioned  its  body, 
Luther  imparted  to  it  its  confessional  soul. 

The  Evangelical  Princes,  with  their  councillors  and  theologians, 
were  associated  with  Melanchthon,  as  representatives  of  the  Protestant 
cause,  and  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Protest- 
ants and  the  proceedings  of  the  Diet.  In  the  preparation  of  the 
Confession,  the  most  difficult  questions  to  be  determined  were  not 
what  doctrines  must  be  declared,  and  what  abuses  ought  to  be  cof- 
rected,  but  in  what  form  shall  these  doctrines  be  stated,  and 
in  what  manner  shall  these  abuses  be  corrected.  In  this  most 
difficult  part  of  his  task,  Melanchthon  did  not  rely  upon  his  own 
judgment  and  that  of  Luther,  but  availed  himself  of  the  coun- 
sel and  advice  of  his  fellow  Confessors.  Although  they  were  not 
equal  in  theological  attainments  and  Biblical  knowledge  to  Luther 
and  Melanchthon,  their  individual  counsels  and  collective  judgment 
were  sought,  and  proved  of  great  value  in  deciding  the  different 
questions  that  arose  during  the  preparation  of  the  Confession. 

From  the  representations  just  made,  the  respective  parts  taken  by 
the  several  Confessors  in  the  origination  of  the  Confession  may  be 
determined.  They  were  not,  however,  called  upon  to  accomplish 
their  work  in  ordinary  times,  untrammeled  by  diverse  considera- 
tions, and  unaffected  by  conflicting  influences.  But  as  the  plant 
receives  its  peculiar  properties  from  the  formative  influences  of  the 
germ  of  its  particular  species,  so  did  the  Augsburg  Confession  re- 
ceive its  distinguishing  characteristics,  through  the  numerous  and 
diversified  influences  exerted  upon  the  Confessors  during  the  succes- 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  2  I  I 

sive  stages  of  its  preparation.  And  to  the  presentation  of  the 
sources  and  character  of  these  moulding  influences,  we  now  desire  to 
call  attention. 

The  Catholic  princes,  deputies,  ambassadors  and  theologians,  con- 
stituted the  other  prominent  party  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.  Some 
of  the  theologians  were  distinguished  for  their  theological  attain- 
ments, others  for  their  dialectic  skill,  others  for  their  personal  mag- 
netism, and  all  alike  for  their  devotion  to  the  dogmas  and  usages  of 
the  Romish  Church.  The  princes  and  deputies  exerted  a  political, 
and  the  theologians  an  ecclesiastical  influence  upon  the  Emperor, 
as  well  as  a  corresponding  influence  upon  the  Protestant  princes, 
councillors  and  theologians,  in  their  consultations  with  them. 

Zwingle,  although  not  personally  present,  nevertheless  made  him- 
self felt  at  Augsburg.  He  had,  upon  his  own  judgment,  prepared 
and  sent  a  confession  to  the  Emperor.  It  set  forth  his  views  in  ex- 
plicit terms,  but  its  form  of  expression  was  not  happy,  and  its  tone 
was  rather  repulsive  than  conciliatory.  It  lacked  both  prudence  and 
moderation,  and  proved  untimely  and  prejudicial  to  the  cause  of 
the  Protestants. 

There  were  ten  cities  represented  at  the  Diet,  two  of  which  signed 
the  Confession  before  its  presentation,  and  four  afterwards.  The 
four  remaining  cities  were  Strasburg,  Memmingen,  Costnitz  and 
Lindau.  They  were  represented  by  Bucer  and  Capito.  They  agreed 
with  the  statements  of  the  Confession  on  all  points  except  those 
made  in  the  Tenth  Article  ;  yet  they  did  not,  on  the  other  hand,  agree 
with  the  representations  made  on  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence 
with  Zwingle  in  his  confession.  They,  therefore,  had  one  prepared 
by  Bucer,  with  the  assistance  of  Capito  and  Hedio,  and  signeil  it  as 
their  own.  It  is  known  as  the  Tetrapolitana,  the  confession  of  the 
four  cities,  and  it  was  presented  to  the  Emperor  on  the  i  ith  of  July. 

Charles  V.  did  not  fully  comprehend  the  character  of  the  religious 
agitations  which  were  convulsing  the  empire.  The  mighty  events 
of  the  previous  decade  seem  to  have  taught  him  but  little,  and  he 
appeared  at  Augsburg  the  same  haughty  tyrant  and  pliant  vassal 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  he  proved  himself  to  be  by  the  issue  of 
the  Edict  of  Worms.  He  claimed,  as  Emperor,  to  be  not  only  the 
Supreme  Sovereign  of  the  State,  but  also  the  Ruler  of  the  Church. 
His  legitimate  authority  in  civil  affairs  the  Protestants  recognized  ; 
his  right  to  decide  ecclesiastical  cjuestions  they  denied.     He  presided 


212  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

at  the  Diet  of  the  Empire.  He  was  biased  in  favor  of  the  Roman- 
ists, and  prejudiced  against  the  Protestants,  While,  therefore,  the 
Protestants  reahzed  that  the  Emperor  could  not  preside  as  an  impar- 
tial judge  between  them  and  the  Romanists,  they,  nevertheless,  felt 
the  influence  he  exerted  upon  the  Diet,  and  duly  considered  it  in 
the  preparation  of  their  Confession. 

The  object  of  the  Diet,  and  the  best  means  of  attaining  it,  as  set 
forth  in  the  call  of  the  Emperor,  and  explained  in  the  preface  to  the 
Confession  by  Chancellor  Briick,  must  also  be  considered.  This 
was  to  harmonize  and  settle  divergent  opinions,  to  heal  religious 
dissensions,  to  restore  concord,  and  to  establish  ecclesiastical  fellow- 
ship in  the  one  Christian  Church.  The  methods  suggested  for  attain- 
ing these  ends  were  a  consultation,  in  which  the  opinions  of  the  con- 
tending parties  might  be  mutually  expressed,  explained  and  considered 
with  moderation,  mildness  and  affection  among  themselves, in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Emperor:  and  erroneous  opinions  abandoned  or  corrected, 
and  an  agreement  secured,  so  far  as  it  could  be  honorably  done,  be- 
tween the  Protestants  and  Catholics.  The  ultimate  object  of  the 
Diet,  thus  set  forth,  exerted  a  decided  influence  upon  the  Confessors 
of  Augsburg,  and  was  kept  constantly  in  view  in  the  preparation  of 
their  Confession. 

Besides  the  various  influences  exerted  by  the  individuals  and 
parties  just  named  upon  the  Confessors,  and  through  them  upon 
the  matter  and  form  of  their  Confession,  others  of  a  more  general  char- 
acter ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  The  political  agitation  of  the  Em- 
pire consequent  upon  the  occurrence  of  war,  the  threatening  aspects 
of  the  invasion  by  the  Turks,  the  dissensions  and  controversies  that 
had  arisen  in  the  Church  between  the  Protestants  and  Romanists,  and 
the  differences  between  the  Protestants  themselves,  must  all  be  taken 
into  consideration  and  their  respective  bearings  determined.  The  exi- 
gencies that  had  arisen,  in  both  Church  and  State,  became  invested 
with  the  force  of  circumstances  and  the  pressure  of  the  times,  and 
exerted  a  corresponding  influence  upon  the  opinions,  judgment  and 
decisions  of  all  persons  and  parties  concerned  in  the  deliberations  of 
Augsburg  To  these  influences  the  Confessors  were  constantly  ex- 
posed, and  under  their  moulding  power  their  Confession  received  its 
distinguishing  characteristics. 

But  in  addition  to  all  these  influences,  the  Confessors  were 
subjected  to  various  others  which  were  both  powerful  and  perplex- 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  213 

ing.  Some  of  them  were  temporary  and  others  more  perma- 
nent in  their  character,  and  the  Confessors  can  never  be  said  to 
have  been  altogether  exempt  from  their  pressure.  And  it  is  only 
by  a  careful  consideration  of  all  these  influences  and  circumstances, 
which  were  more  or  less  powerful  at  different  times  during  the  Diet, 
that  the  changes  of  sentiment  and  differences  of  doctrinal  statement 
made  by  the  Confessors  before,  after  and  during  the  Diet,  can  be 
properly  understood.     A  few  illustrations  of  this  we  subjoin. 

At  Augsburg,  the  condemnatory  clause  of  the  Tenth  Article  of  the 
Confession  ("  the  opposite  doctrine  is  therefore  rejected" J  was  aimed 
at  the  doctrine  on  the  Lord's  Supper  held  by  the  Swiss  ;  and  yet 
Philip,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  who  sympathized  with  the  Zwin- 
glian  view,  and  objected  to  that  set  forth  in  the  Tenth  Article,  was 
not  only  permitted  but  urged  to  sign  the  Confession. 

At  Marburg,  Melanchthon  met  Bucer  in  conference ;  at  Augs- 
burg, he  rejected  all  his  overtures  for  a  personal  meeting  ;  but  at 
Cassel,  in  1534,  he  engaged  cordially  in  a  religious  consultation 
with  him,  which  resulted  in  a  better  understanding  between  them, 
and  in  inducing  the  Strasburg  divines  to  teach  according  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 

Li  1530,  Melanchthon  so  stated  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence 
in  the  Tenth  Article,  that  the  Romanists  professed  to  approve  of  it, 
and  the  Swiss  objected  to  it;  in  1540,  Melanchthon  so  changed 
the  Tenth  Article  of  the  Confession,  that  the  Swiss  approved  of  it 
and  the  Romanists  objected  to  it."^ 

In  1530,  the  Evangelical  Princes  adopted  the  original  Augsburg 

2 The  tenth  article  of  the  edition  of  1530  reads  thus:  "Concerning  the 
Lord's  Supper,  they  teach  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present 
and  distributed  to  those  who  eat  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  they  reject  those 
who  teach  otherwise."  In  the  edition  of  1540,  it  reads  thus:  "  Concerning  the 
Lord's  Supper,  they  teach  that  with  the  bread  and  wine,  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  truly  exhibited  to  those  who  eat  in  the  Lord's  Supper."  But  by 
making  these  changes  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Tenth  Article,  Melanchthon  did 
not  intend  to  change  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  it.  He  never  adopted  either  the 
views  of  Zwingle  or  Calvin  on  the  Lord's  Supper  but  adhered  to  those  of  Luther 
until  his  death.  He  did,  however,  change  his  opinions  concerning  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  the  difference  between  them,  as  well  as  the  real  character 
of  both  the  Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  lie  no 
longer  regarded  the  difference  as  fundamental,  and  as  forming  a  justiliable  bar 
to  Christian  recognition  and  ecclesiastical  fellowship. 


214  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Confession,  and  in  their  subsequent  conferences  with  the  Romanists 
at  Worms  and  other  places,  made  Melanchthon's  edition  of  it  the 
basis  of  their  negotiations;  after  1540,  the  Protestants  made  Me- 
lanchthon's edition  of  1540  (the  Variata)  the  basis  of  similar  con- 
ferences with  the  Catholics;  and  in  1561,  at  Naumburg,  the  Evan- 
gelical Princes  formally  adopted  both  the  altered  and  the  unaltered 
edition  of  the  Confession,  and  thereby  recognized  the  substantial 
identity  of  their  doctrinal  statements,  as  well  as  the  equality  of  their 
confessional  significance  and  authority. 

During  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  Bucer,  convinced  of  the  import- 
ance of  securing  a  union  among  the  Protestants,  wrote  to  Luther, 
and  afterwards  visited  him  at  Coburg;  but  Luther  refused  to  answer 
his  letter,  and  gave  him  little  encouragement  in  his  efforts  to 
harmonize  the  differences  between  him  and  the  Swiss;  yet,  under 
different  circumstances,  Luther  subsequently  wrote  to  Bucer,  and 
expressed  his  views  as  follows  :  "I  wish  that  this  schism  were  put  an 
end  to,  even  if  I  had  to  give  my  life  for  it  three  times  over,  because 
I  see  how  necessary  your  fellowship  is  for  us,  and  how  much  incon- 
venience this  disunion  has  occasioned  to  the  Gospel,  and  still  occa- 
sions ;  so  that  I  am  convinced  that  all  the  gates  of  hell,  the  Papacy, 
the  Turk,  the  whole  world,  the  flesh,  and  whatever  evil  thing  there 
is,  would  not  have  been  able  to  injure  the  Gospel  so  much,  if  we 
had  remained  at  one." 

In  1529,  Luther  disapproved  the  holding  of  the  Marburg  Confer- 
ence with  the  Swiss,  in  the  interest  of  union,  and  took  part  in  it 
reluctantly ;  in  1536,  he  himself  proposed  the  holding  of  the  conven- 
vention,  for  the  promotion  of  Protestant  union,  at  Wittenberg,  which 
resulted  in  the  adoption  of  the  so-called  Wittenberg  Formula  Con- 
cordiae.  In  view  of  the  modified  positions  set  forth  in  the  Concordia, 
Dorner  says  it  "may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  a  document  which 
shows  beforehand  that  a  stand  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper,  such  as 
became  afterwards,  through  Calvin,  the  ruling  one  in  the  Reformed 
churches,  was  acknowledged  even  by  Luther  himself  to  be  one  with 
which  brotherly  communion  was  Christianly  lawful.  And  this  histori- 
cal judgment  is  not  altered  by  the  fact  that  seven  years  afterwards 
Luther  suddenly  broke  out  again  in  his  Kleine  Bekenntniss  vom 
Abendmahl  in  violent  ebullition  against  the  Swiss,  quite  unexpectedly 
to  all,  except  those  who  were  envious  of  and  hated  Melanchthon, 
and  who  had  goaded  Luther  on  to  this." 


DR.  CONKADS    ESSAY.  21  5 

At  Marburg,  Luther,  on  the  third  day  of  the  Conference,  refused 
the  proffered  hand  of  Zwingle,  and  although  he  extended  his  hand 
to  Zwingle  on  the  fourth  day,  he  nevertheless  refused  to  acknowledge 
the  Swiss  as  brethren;  yet,  after  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  he  recog- 
nized and  called  the  Swiss  "our  dear  l)rethren  in  the  Lord,"  and  in 
answering  a  letter  of  inquiry  addressed  to  him,  concerning  his  views 
on  the  spiritual  enjoyment  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  expressed  his  views  in  a  letter  to  the  Zurichers  as  fol- 
lows: "  We  leave  it  in  the  hands  of  Omnipotence,  how  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  given  us  in  the  Supper.  Where  we  have  not 
entirely  come  to  an  understanding  on  this,  it  is  best  that  we  be 
friendly  towards  one  another,  and  always  expect  the  best  of  one 
another,  until  the  mire  and  troubled  water  settle."  In  quoting  the 
above  testimony,  Dorner  says:  "From  this  it  is  evident  how  I-uther 
regards  it  as  indispensable  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
given  us  in  the  Supper,  but  distinguishes  from  this  the  how  and 
the  connection  with  the  elements,"  and  consecjuently  "  the  peace 
established  between  the  two  parties  (at  Wittenberg)  was  recognized  to 
be  rightful,  if  there  was  agreement  in  the  chief  matter,  in  the  what?" 

Having  thus  presented  to  our  view  the  men  who  formed,  and 
the  circumstances  and  influences  under  which  they  formed  and 
adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession,  we  are  prepared,  in  some  measure, 
to  consider  and  appreciate  the  characteristics  of  the  great  symbol  of 
evangelical  doctrine,  which,  after  many  difficulties,  they  completed 
and  submitted  to  the  Emperor,  Charles  V.,  at  Augsburg,  and  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Christian  world. 

I.    THE  AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    IS    PROTESTANT. 

Charles  V.,  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  was  a  haughty  Spaniard, 
an  imperious  despot,  and  a  religious  persecutor.  In  15  21  he  issued 
the  Edict  of  Worms  prepared  by  Aleander,  the  Pope's  Nuncio,  in 
which  Luther  is  charged  with  blasphemy  and  heresy;  with  assailing 
the  Church,  defying  all  authority,  destrt)ying  the  Christian  faith, 
and  inciting  to  revolt,  schism,  war,  murder,  theft  and  incendiarism. 
He  is  declared  to  be  "  no  man,  but  Satan,  in  the  form  of  a  man  in 
a  monk's  hood;  a  madman,  possessed  of  the  devil."  He  was  de- 
clared an  outlaw,  his  followers  placed  under  the  ban  of  the  empire, 
his  writings  ordered  to  be  burned,  and  all  efforts  to  propagate  his 
doctrines,  and  make  proselytes  to  his  cause,  forbidden  as  a  crime, 


2l6  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

subject  to  heavy  penalties.  The  Edict  of  the  first  Diet  of  Spire 
(1526)  repealed  that  of  Worms,  and  granted  to  each  State  full  lib- 
erty in  religious  matters.  At  the  second  Diet  of  Spire  (1529)  the 
Edict  of  the  first  was  peremptorily  repealed  by  Charles  V.,  thereby 
depriving  the  disciples  of  Luther  of  religious  liberty,  exposing  them 
to  political  disabilities  and  punishment,  and  restricting  the  promul- 
gation of  the  Gospel.  Unprepared  for  such  a  breach  of  faith,  the 
Evangelical  Princes  were,  thunderstruck,  and  retired  to  an  adjoining 
chamber  for  consultation.  After  due  consideration,  they  came  to 
the  unanimous  conclusion  to  reject  the  decree  passed  by  the  major- 
ity of  the  States  and  sanctioned  by  the  Emperor,  and  to  appeal  to 
the  decisions  of  a  general  council.  They  accordingly  drew  up  a 
declaration,  and  headed  by  John,  Elector  of  Saxony,  presented  their 
world-renowned  Protest  to  the  assembled  Diet.  From  this  Protest 
the  followers  of  Luther  were  subsequently  called  Protestants.  This 
Protest  contains  the  politico-religious  principles  of  Protestantism. 
It  asserts  the  right  of  private  judgment,  the  prerogatives  of  con- 
science, and  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Word  of  God ;  and  protests 
against  the  claim  of  the  civil  power  to  regulate  matters  of  religion, 
as  well  as  against  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  Church  to  determine 
matters  of  faith. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  is  a  legitimate  development  of  the  Pro- 
test of  Spire.  Indeed,  the  Protestants  of  Spire  were  also  the  Con- 
fessors of  Augsburg.  The  religious  authority  claimed  over  them 
by  the  Emperor  at  Spire,  they  repudiated  before  his  face  at  Augs- 
burg ;  the  religious  rights  denied  them  at  Spire,  they  asserted  at 
Augsburg;  and  the  principles  contained  in  their  Protest,  they  ampli- 
fied and  reiterated  in  their  Confession.  It  may,  therefore,  be  justly 
regarded,  not  only  as  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Evangelical 
Princes,  but  also  as  their  completed  Protest  against  the  usurpations 
of  the  State  and  the  despotism  of  the  Romish  Church. 

The  term  Protestant,  in  its  strictly  historic  sense,  is  restricted 
to  the  subjects  involved  in  civil  and  religious  liberty.  In  its  theo- 
logico-confessional  sense,  it  designates  the  distinguishing  differences 
in  doctrine  and  usages  between  the  Reformers  and  the  Romanists. 
The  object  of  the  Confessors  of  Augsburg  was  to  set  forth  these  dif- 
ferences in  their  Confession.  The  doctrinal  differences  embrace  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  new  obedience,  the  office  of  the 
ministry,  the  real  presence,  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  auricular 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  21/ 

confession,  repentance,  good  works,  ecclesiastical  rites,  civil  govern- 
ment, the  Christian  Church,  the  worship  of  saints,  and  the  exclusive 
mediatorship  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  ceremonial  and  practical  differ- 
ences include  the  communion  in  one  kind,  the  celibacy  of  the  priests, 
the  mass,  confession,  human  traditions,  monastic  vows,  church  power, 
and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops. 

These  distinguishing  differences  between  Protestantism  and  Ro- 
manism take  up  the  greater  part  of  the  entire  Confession,  and 
include  not  only  the  principles  of  Protestantism,  in  a  politico-eccle- 
siastical sense,  but  also  its  doctrines,  ecclesiastical  principles  and 
ceremonial  usages,  in  its  theologico-confessional  sense.  Thus,  the 
Augsburg  Confession  defined  and  established  the  principles  of  Pro- 
testantism, by  discriminating  them  from  Romanism ;  and  this  is  its 
first  general  and  historic  characteristic. 

II.     THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    IS    EVANGELICAL. 

In  its  literal  sense  the  word  Evangelical  means  "according  to  the 
gospel,"  but  in  its  historic  sense  it  signifies  "salvation  by  grace." 
This  signification  it  received  during  the  Reformation,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  peculiarity  of  the  religious  controversy  which  then 
took  place.  The  differences  between  the  Protestants  and  Romanists 
were  numerous  and  embraced  both  doctrine  and  practice.  But 
while  this  was  the  case,  it  was  manifest  that  most,  if  not  all,  these 
differences  arose  from  the  divergent  views  entertained  by  the  con- 
tending parties  on  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  A  term 
was  therefore  needed  to  express  the  distinguishing  difference  between 
the  Romish  and  Protestant  systems  .of  doctrine,  and  the  word  Evan- 
gelical was  chosen  for  this  purpose.  It  expresses  the  generic  con- 
ception of  "salvation  by  grace"  held  by  the  Protestants,  over 
against  the  legalistic  conception  of  salvation  by  works,  maintained 
by  the  Romanists.  The  Romish  Church  teaches  "  that,  although  a 
man  is  entitled  in  part  to  justification,  through  the  merits  of  Christ, 
these  are  nevertheless  not  sufficient,  and  hence,  he  must  earn  the 
same  for  himself  before  his  conversion  by  his  own  strength  and  good 
works.  Thus  he  receives  the  first  justification,  /.  e.,  regeneration: 
and  after  this  it  becomes  indispensable  that  man  should  continue  to 
earn  for  himself  the  grace  of  God  and  eternal  salvation,  by  keeping 
the  commandments  and  doing  other  good  works." 

The  Confession  of  Augsburg  teaches,  "  That  men  cannot  be  justf- 
15 


21 8  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

fied  before  God  by  their  own  strength,  merit  or  works,  but  that 
they  are  justified  gratuitously  for  Christ's  sake,  through  f;iith,  when 
they  beheve  that  they  are  received  into  favor,  and  that  their  sins  are 
remitted  on  account  of  Christ,  who  made  satisfaction  for  our  trans- 
gressions by  His  death.  This  faith  God  imputes  to  us  as  righteous- 
ness." 

Tlie  relative  importance  and  character  of  the  article  on  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith,  are  set  forth  by  Melanchthon  in  the  Apology.  It  is 
here  declared  that  it  constitutes  "  the  principal  and  most  important 
article  of  Christian  doctrine,"  and  the  "  only  key  to  the  whole 
Bible  ;"  that  it  "  contributes  especially  to  a  clear  and  correct  appre- 
hension of  all  the  holy  Scriptures;"  that  it  "  alone  shows  the  way 
to  the  unspeakable  treasure  and  the  true  knowledge  of  Christ,  with- 
out which  the  poor  conscience  can  have  no  true,  invariable,  fixed 
hope,  nor  conceive  the  riches  of  the  grace  of  Christ." 

This  conception  of  justification  by  the  unmerited  grace  of  God, 
through  faith  alone  in  the  merits  of  Christ,  pervades  the  entire  Con- 
fession. It  is  its  very  heart,  sending  forth  its  animating  influence 
into  every  article  and  sentence,  and  rendering  it  in  all  its  parts  in- 
stinct with  saving  grace  and  quickening  power.  It  annihilates  all 
claims  of  merit,  that  man  can  set  up  to  secure  pardon  and  accept- 
ance before  God,  whether  based  upon  the  cultivation  of  natural 
Virtue,  worldly  morality,  legalistic  obedience,  ceremonial  perform- 
ances or  self-imposed  penance,  and  declares  directly  and  indirectly 
that  justification,  regeneration,  sanctification  and  salvation,  can 
only  be  obtained  as  the  free  gift  of  God,  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  If  the  article  on  justification  determines,  as  Luther  said, 
"  the  character  of  a  standing  or  falling  Church,"  it  determines  also 
the  character  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  pre-eminently  Evan- 
gelical. 

III.       THE    .\UG3BURG   CONFESSION    IS    ORTHODOX. 

The  Bible  contains  the  revelation  of  God.  Its  authors  were  in- 
spired by  the  Holy  Ghost,  It  furnishes  man  with  an  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  placed  in  his  hands  and  he  is  com- 
manded to  search  it,  believe  its  truths,  and  regulate  his  life  accord- 
ing to  its  precepts.  As  a  written  directory  its  meaning  is  said  to  be 
so  clear,  that  even  the  wayfaring  man,  with  his  minimum  degree  of 
knowledge,  may  find  the  way  of  life.      And  as  an  additional  safe- 


1 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  2I9 

guard  against  the  delusions  of  error,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  aid 
man  in  the  discovery,  apprehension  and  practice  of  the  truth  which 
it  reveals.  Adequate  provision  has  thus  been  made  to  guard  the 
Church  against  the  perversion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  promulga- 
tion of  destructive  error,  and  to  secure  from  her,  as  the  true  wit- 
ness of  God,  a  faithful  testimony  of  saving  truth.  Such  a  testimony 
is  found  in  the  Oecumenical  Creeds,  which  have  stood  through  ages 
as  a  barrier  to  heresy  and  a  bulwark  to  the  Christian  faith.. 

The  doctrines  thus  confessed  by  the  Church  catholic,  either  by 
formal  statement  or  necessary  implication,  are :  The  Trinity  of 
Persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  vicarious  nature 
of  the  atonement,  the  depravity  of  the  human  race,  justification  by 
faith  alone,  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
obligation  to  live  a  holy  life,  the  appointment  of  the  ministry,  the 
institution  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  as  means  of  grace,  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  everlasting 
blessedness  of  the  righteous,  and  the  eternal  damnation  of  the 
wicked. 

The  term  "orthodox,"  which  in  its  literal  sense  means  "  right  in 
opinion,"  has  been  employed  in  ecclesiastical  usage,  to  designate 
the  truths  above  stated  as  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
sj'stem.  These  doctrines  are  inseparably  connected  and  constitute 
a  consistent  whole.  The  denial  of  any  one  of  them  will  impair  the 
integrity  of  the  system,  and  affect  the  genuineness  of  faith.  The 
rejection  of  all  of  them,  and  the  substitution  of  their  opposites, 
would  involve  an  utter  perversion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  ruin  of 
the  Church. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  not  only  recognizes  the  symbolical 
character  of  the  (Ecumenical  Creeds,  but  contains  a  consistent  devel- 
opment and  a  fuller  statement  of  the  doctrines  they  contain,  and  it 
may  therefore  be  justly  designated  as  thoroughly  orthodox. 

IV.     THE   AUGSnURG   CONFESSION    IS    LUTHERAN. 

Luther  was  endowed  with  such  rare  natural  and  spiritual  abilities 
by  the  Providence  and  grace  of  God,  as  to  constitute  him  at  once 
the  leading  reformer.  He  first  discovered  the  Bible,  detected  the 
delusive  errors  of  Rome,  and  promulgated  the  saving  truths  of  the 
Gospel.  He  thus  became  the  author  of  the  Reformation,  and  as  its 
master  spirit  directed   its   course.     From   his   extraordinary  theo- 


220  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

logical  and  ecclesiastical  resources  he  supplied  its  doctrinal,  cate- 
chetical, liturgical  and  governmental  principles,  and  stamped  his 
own  impress  upon  it.  He  translated  the  Bible  into  the  vernacular 
tongue  for  the  people.  He  prepared  a  catechism  for  the  children, 
and  provided  a  liturgy  for  the  altar.  He  composed  hymns  and  tunes 
for  the  service  of  song,  and  furnished  the  material  for  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  a  symbolic  standard  for  the 
Evangelical  Church.  In  view,  therefore,  of  the  service  rendered 
Melanchthon  in  the  compilation  and  composition  of  the  Confession 
by  Luther,  he  could  justly  claim  it  as  his  own  (which  he  did),  and 
while  Melanchthon  could,  with  characteristic  modesty,  call  it  ''  the 
Confession  of  the  revered  Djctor  Luther,"  Luther  could  in  the 
same  spirit  return  the  compliment,  and  designate  it  as  "  the  Apology 
of  Master  Philip." 

The  doctrines  and  ecclesiastical  principles  set  forth  in  the  Confes- 
sion were  those  held  and  maintained  by  Luther.  On  this  account, 
the  Romanists  applied  the  terms  "Lutheran"  and  "Lutheranism"  as 
epithets  of  reproach  to  the  Church  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
to  the  system  of  doctrine  it  contained ;  and  they  were  accepted  and 
employed  by  the  Protestants,  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  in  distin- 
guishing the  followers  of  Luther  from  the  Romanists  on  the  one 
hand,  and  from  the  Reformed  on  the  other. 

Other  differences  may  be  detected  in  the  doctrinal  statements 
made  in  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Confessions;  but  the  principal 
differences  have  reference  to  the  sacraments  and  confession.  The 
Lutheran  views  on  these  subjects,  as  distinguished  from  those  of  the 
Reformed,  are  contained  in  the  IX.,  X.,  XL  and  XIII.  Articles  of  the 
Confession,  treating  of  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Use  of  the 
Sacraments^  and  Confession. 

Article  X. — Of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"Concerning  the  Holy  Supper  of  the  Lord  it  is  taught  that  the  true 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present,  under  the  form  of  bread 
and  wine,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  are  there  administered  and  re- 
ceived.    The  opposite  doctrine  is,  therefore,  rejected." 

In  this  article  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  presented.  It  is  based  upon  the  inseparable 
union  of  the  human  and  divine  natures  in  the  constitution  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ  (Art.  HI.),  from  which  it  necessarily  follows  that  the 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  221 

person  of  Christ  cannot  be  divided  into  two  parts,  and  the  divine 
nature,  separated  from  the  human,  be  present  on  earth  and  every- 
where else;  and  the  human  nature,  separated  from  the  divine,  be 
present  in  heaven  and  nowhere  else;  but  that  wherever  and  when- 
ever Christ  is  present,  whether  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  heaven 
or  in  the  Holy  Supper  on  earth,  He  must  be  present  in  His  whole 
person,  constituted  of  natures  both  human  and  divine,  indissolubly 
united.  It  is  distinguished  from  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Transub- 
stantiation,  according  to  which  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  and  also  from  the  extreme  Zwinglian 
doctrine,  according  to  which  the  supernatural  presence  and  recep- 
tion of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are 
altogether  denied,  and  its  purely  commemorative  character  alone 
affirmed.  The  mode  of  the  presence  and  the  manner  of  the  recep- 
tion of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  are  not  defined 
in  the  Ar:icle;  but  from  the  discriminating  explanations  given 
thereof  by  the  Lutheran  confessors  and  theologians,  the  candid 
inquirer  may  obtain  correct  apprehensions  in  regard  to  them. 

Luther,  in  setting  forth  his  views  on  this  subject,  says:  "Christ's 
body  has  three  modes  of  presence.  First,  the  comprehensible,  cor- 
poreal mode,  such  as  He  used  when  He  was  on  earth,  local.  Secondly, 
in  another,  incomprehensible,  spiritual  mode,  it  can  be  present  illo- 
call.  Moreover  (thirdly)  it  can  be  present  in  a  divine  and  heavenly 
mode,  since  it  is  one  person  with  God."  The  Confessors,  accord- 
ingly, denied  that  Christ's  body  was  present  locally  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  held  that  in  that  sense,  as  circumscribed  in  space,  it 
was  in  heaven,  and  could  not  at  the  same  time  be  present  anywhere 
else.  They  also  rejected  iinpanation,  that  Christ  is  in  the  bread  and 
wine — stibpana'.ion,  that  Christ  is  vnder  the  bread  and  wine— and 
consubstatitiatlon,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  changed 
into  one  suT)s(ance  7vith  the  bread  and  wine,  as  well  as  a  local  and 
physical  conjunction  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  with  the  bread 
and  wine.  They  held  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
as  true,  real  and  substantial ;  the  mode  of  their  presence,  as  spiritual, 
supernatural  and  heavenly ;  and  their  reception,  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine,  as  mystical,  sacramental  and  incomprehensible. 

From  these  representations  it  is  manifest  that  the  Confessors  dis- 
carded every  physical  and  materialistic  conception  of  the  presence, 
as  well  as  every  species  of  a  gross,  carnal  or  Capernaitish  eating  of 


222  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  body  and  drinking  of  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Supper  ; 
and  regarded  it  not  only  as  a  memorial  and  symbol  through  the  ob- 
servance of  which  they  commemorated  and  showed  forth  His  death, 
but  also  as  a  communion  through  the  partaking  of  which  the  bread 
which  they  brake  became  "  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ," 
and  the  cup  of  blessing,  which  they  blessed,  "the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ."  And  from  the  records  of  history,  they  as- 
serted that  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  was  held  in  the  prim- 
itive ages  by  the  universal  Church,  that  it  was  perverted  by  the 
Romish  Church  and  transformed  into  transubstantiation,  and  that 
it  was  divested  by  them  of  its  superstitious  features,  and  reaffirmed 
and  confessed  in  its  scriptural  purity. 

Candor  constrains  us,  however,  to  admit,  that  language  was  used, 
illustrations  and  arguments  employed,  and  authorities  cited,  in  the 
sacramental  controversies  that  took  place  during  the  Reformation, 
which,  when  taken  in  their  literal  sense,  and  interpreted  without  any 
regard  to  their  connection,  or  the  disclaimers  and  explanations 
made  by  the  Lutheran  Confessors,  have  led  to  grave  misconceptions, 
and  gross  misrepresentations  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  not  only  by  the  rejectors 
of  the  doctrine  but  by  Lutherans  themselves. 

Article  IX.  —  Of  Baptism. 

"  Concerning  Baptism  it  is  taught  that  it  is  necessary;  and  that 
children  ought  to  be  baptized,  who  are  through  such  Baptism  pre- 
sented unto  God,  and  become  acceptable  unto  Him." 

In  this  article  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Baptism  is  set  forth. 
From  the  declarations  it  contains,  and  the  explanations  made  by  the 
Confessors  in  their  other  confessional  writings,  their  views  in  regard 
to  Baptism  may  be  learned  from  the  following  summary  statement: 

Baptism  is  a  religious  ordinance,  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ.  Its 
constituent  elements  are  water  and  the  Word  of  God.  Its  adminis- 
tration consists  in  the  application  of  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  by  an  authorized  minister  of  the  Gospel,  either 
by  sprinkling,  pouring  or  immersion.  Its  subjects  are  adult  be- 
lievers and  their  children.  Its  validity  is  based  upon  its  divine  in- 
stitution and  observance  according  to  the  command  of  God,  and 
not  upjn  either  the  character  of  the  administrator,  the  mode  of 
applying  the  water,  or  the  faith  of  the  recipient.     It  is  a  sacrament, 


i)K.  Conrad's  essay.  223 

or  "  visible  word;"  an  efficacious  sign  and  seal  of  the  premise  of 
God  ;  a  sure  testimony  of  His  will  toward  us.  It  becomes  efficacious, 
not  ex  opere  operato,  but  through  faith,  apprehending  the  truths 
signified,  and  relying  upon  the  promise  made  by  it.  It  is  a  means 
of  grace,  through  which  God  offers  His  grace  and  confers  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  excites  and  confirms  faith  in  those  who  use  it  aright, 
whereby  they  obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  are  born  again,  released 
from  condemnation  and  eternal  death,  and  are  received  and  remain 
in  God's  favor,  so  long  as  they  continue  in  a  state  of  faith  and 
bring  forth  good  works ;  but  to  them  who  are  destitute  of  faith  it 
remains  a  fruitless  sign  and  imparts  no  blessing  ;  while  those  who 
misimprove  their  Baptism  by  a  course  of  willful  sin  and  wicked 
works,  receive  the  grace  of  God  in  vain,  grieve  and  lose  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  fall  into  a  state  of  condemnation,  from  which 
they  cannot  be  recovered,  except  by  true  conversion,  involving 
a  renewal  of  the  understanding,  will  and  heart.  Baptism  ought 
also  to  be  administered  to  children,  who  through  it  are  offered 
to  God,  become  acceptable  to  Him,  and  are  received  into  his 
favor.  It  imposes  the  duty  of  Christian  nurture  upon  parents  and 
the  Church,  and  finds  its  complement  in  Confirmation.  It  is 
ordinarily  necessary,  as  a  divinely  appointed  ordinance,  but  not 
absolutely  essential  to  salvation.  In  these  statements  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  "  Baptismal  Grace,"  as  maintained  by  the  Confessors,  is 
comprehended.  It  was  confessed  by  the  primitive  Church  and  de- 
fended by  the  Christian  Fathers.  It  was  perverted  by  the  Romish 
Church  and  transformed  into  "  Baptismal  Regeneration,"  ex  opere 
operato.  It  was  drawn  l)y  the  Confessors  from  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
sustained  by  the  most  learned  and  profound  commentators  of  both 
ancient  and  modern  times,  and  accepted  by  many  Protestants  of 
other  denominations. 

Article  XIII. —  Of  the  Use  of  the  Sacraments. 

"Concerning  the  use  of  the  Sacraments,  it  is  taught  that  they 
have  been  instituted,  not  only  as  tokens  by  which  Christians  may 
be  known  externally,  but  as  signs  and  evidences  of  the  divine  will 
towards  us,  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  and  strengthening  our  taith; 
hence  they  also  require  faith,  and  they  are  properly  used  then  only 
when  received  in  faith,  and  when  faith  is  strengthened  by  them." 

The  manner  in  which  the  sacraments  become  efficacious  in  e.\cit- 


224  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

ing  and  strengthening  faith,  is  explained  by  Melanchthon  in  the 
Apology  as  follows:  "The  sacraments,  as  external  signs,  were  in- 
stituted to  move  our  hearts,  namely,  both  by  the  word  and  the  ex- 
ternal signs,  to  believe  when  we  are  baptized,  and  when  we  receive 
the  Lord's  body,  that  God  will  be  truly  merciful  to  us,  as  Paul  says, 
Rom.  x:  17,  Faith  cometh  by  hearing."  As  the  word  enters 
our  ears,  so  the  external  signs  are  placed  before  our  eyes,  inwardly 
to  excite  and  move  the  heart  to  faith.  The  word  and  the  external 
signs  work  the  same  thing  in  our  hearts ;  as  Augustin  well  says  : 
"The  sacrament  is  a  visible  word,  for  the  external  sign  is  like  a 
picture,  and  signifies  the  .same  thing  preached  by  the  word ;  both, 
therefore,  effect  the  same  thing." 

Article  XI. —  Of  Confession. 

"In  reference  to  Confession,  it  is  taught  that  private  absolution 
ought  to  be  retained  in  the  Church  and  should  not  be  discontinued. 
In  Confession,  however,  it  is  unnecessary  to  enumerate  all  transgres- 
sions and  sins,  which,  indeed,  is  not  possible.  Ps.  xix :  12:  Who 
can  understand  his  errors  ?  " 

In  this  article  the  Confessors  ])resent  the  Lutheran  view  of  Confes- 
sion and  Absolution.  They  retained,  indeed,  the  words  "confes- 
sion "  and  "  absolution,"  but  they  employed  them  in  an  evangelical 
sense.  They  rejected  "  auricular  confession"  and  priestly  absolu- 
tion, as  practiced  by  the  Romish  Church.  They  retained,  however, 
private  or  individual  confession  and  scriptural  absolution,  principally 
on  account  of  the  comfort  thus  afforded  to  penitent  souls,  in  their 
approach  to  the  Lord's  Table.  They  did  not  regard  confession  as 
commanded  by  the  Scriptures,  and  its  practice  as  necessary,  obliga- 
tory and  unchangeable.  They  recognized  it  as  a  custom,  estab- 
lished by  the  Church,  in  the  exercise  of  her  Christian  liberty,  and 
which  might  be  either  changed  or  abrogated.  The  practice  of 
private  individual  confession  has,  accordingly,  been  discontinued 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  to  a  very  great  extent,  and  the  custom  of 
making  a  general  confession  of  sin  by  the  congregations  collectively 
at  the  service  preparatory  to  the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  introduced 
in  its  stead. 

The  Scriptural  interpretation  of  Absolution,  in  the  evangelical 
sense,  is  given  by  Luther  in  his  celebrated  sermon  on  the  remission 
of  sins,  as  follows: 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  22$ 

"The  remission  of  sins  is  out  of  the  power  of  the  pope,  Ifishop  or 
priest,  or  any  otlier  man  living,  and  rests  solely  on  the  Word  of 
Christ  and  thine  own  faith.  For  if  a  simple  believer  say  to  thee, 
though  a  woman  or  a  child,  '  God  jjardon  thy  sins  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,'  and  thou  receive  that  word  with  strong  faith,  thou  art 
absolved;  but  let  faith  in  pardon  through  Christ  hold  the  first  place 
and  command  the  whole  field  of  your  warfare." 

Confession  and  Absolution,  as  thus  explained  by  Luther,  meant 
nothing  more  than  the  declaration  of  the  promise  of  pardon  made 
by  God  to  the  confessing,  psnitent  and  believing  soul,  whether 
uttered  formally  by  the  pastor  at  the  preparatory  service,  or  infor- 
mally to  the  inquiring  soul  while  engaged  in  his  pastoral  work,  or 
declared  in  the  public  promulgation  of  the  Gospel. 

The  doctrines  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  Baptism  and  Con- 
fession, distinguish  the  Lutheran  from  the  Reformed  Churches.  In 
these,  as  well  as  in  some  other  doctrines,  there  are  points  of  agree- 
ment and  of  difference,  the  specific  presentation  of  which  our  limits 
forbid  us  to  attempt.  And  as  the  doctrines  held  by  Luther  on  the 
Sacraments  and  Confession  are  set  forth  in  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
it  may  properly  and  truly  be  called  Lutheran. 

V.     THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION   IS   CONSERVATIVE. 

When  the  great  religious  movement  of  the  sixteenth  century  was 
contemplated  from  the  standpoint  of  church  authority,  it  was  called 
Protestant;  when  from  that  of  doctrine,  Evangelical,  and  when  from 
that  of  morals,  the  Reformation.  But  reformation  presupposes  the 
prevalence  of  corruption.  Such  corruption  had  taken  place  in  the 
Church  of  Rome.  It  was  general,  embracing  doctrine  and  practice. 
Its  existence  had  been  acknowledged  and  its  pernicious  influence 
felt  and  lamented  for  ages.  Wickliffe,  Huss  and  Jerome  had  borne 
witness  against  it,  and  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood.  The 
most  candid  among  the  Romanists  themselves,  acknowledged  the 
prevalence  of  error  and  advocated  measures  of  reform;  but  their 
counsels  were  unheeded,  and  the  tide  of  corruption  continued  to 
flow. 

Thus,  the  unwillingness  of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  correct  her 
errors  and  reform  her  superstitious  practices,  became  the  occasion  of 
the  origination  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  determined  both 
its  matter  and  form.     In  the  first  part,  it  presents  the  principles  of 


226  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

reform,  and  in  the  second  applies  them  to  the  correction  of  abuses. 
In  the  accompHshraent  of  these  ends,  the  Confessors  did  not  in- 
vent novel  instrumentalities  and  agencies  of  reform,  but  availed 
themselves  of  those  which  God  had  furnished  ready  to  their  hands. 
They  relied  upon  the  legitimate  use  of  the  divinely-appointed  means 
of  grace,  the  preaching  of  the  Word,  and  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments.  These  are  set  forth  in  the  articles  on  justification,  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  new  obedience,  and  the  institution  and  effi- 
cacy of  the  sacraments. 

In  the  prosecution  of  the  work  of  reform,  different  principles  and 
methods  were  adopted  by  the  various  contending  parties  in  the  Re- 
formation. The  Romanists,  under  the  claim  of  papal  infallibility, 
resisted  all  reform.  The  Anabaptists  overturned  all  established 
religious  institutions,  and  began  to  build  anew  from  the  very  founda- 
tion. The  Reformed  rejected  all  forms,  ceremonies  and  usages  not 
commanded  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Lutherans  discarded  all  prac- 
tices clearly  condemned  by  the  Word  of  God,  but  retained  such 
usages  as  were  not  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  in  the  expectation 
that  those  customs  which  would  prove  unedifying  and  injurious, 
would,  in  due  time,  be  either  improved  or  abrogated. 

This  is  true  conservatism.  It  detects  error  and  aims  at  correcting 
it ;  it  recognizes  evils,  and  tries  to  remove  them ;  it  is  not  afraid 
to  pull  down,  but  it  anticipates  the  necessity,  and  makes  timely  and 
adequate  preparation,  for  building  up.  In  the  accomplishment  of 
its  reformatory  ends  it  takes  wise  counsel  from  experience,  adopts 
Scriptural  means,  employs  rational  methods,  and  exhibits  becoming 
patience  under  the  inspiration  of  hope.  And  such  conservatism  is 
a  leading  characteristic  of  the  great  Confession  of  Augsburg. 

VI.     IT    IS    ALSO    TRULY    CATHOLIC. 

The  term  catholic,  in  its  literal  sense,  means  general,  and  as  such 
stands  as  the  antithesis  oi  specific.  A  confession  may,  therefore,  be 
designated  as  catholic  just  in  proportion  as  it  states  truth  in  a  gen- 
eral or  in  a  specific  form.  According  to  this  criterion,  the  ancient 
creeds,  although  pre-eminently  distinguished  for  their  catholicity, 
differ  in  the  degree  in  which  they  exhibit  it.  The  Athanasian  Creed 
is  more  specific  and  less  catholic  than  the  Nicene  ;  and  the  Apostles' 
Creed  is  less  specific  than  the  Nicene,  and  the  most  catholic  confes- 
sion of  Christendom.     The  Augsburg  Confession  does,  indeed,  em- 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  227 

brace  many  more  points  of  doctrine,  and  sets  most  of  them  forth 
in  a  more  specific  form  than  the  Gicumenical  Creeds;  but  it  is, 
nevertheless,  distinguished  in  these  respects  from  many  of  the  con- 
fessions subsequently  adopted  by  the  Lutheran^  as  well  as  the  Re- 
formed churches. 

The  Confessors  expressly  state  that  in  presenting  the  Articles  of 
Faith  contained  in  their  Confession,  they  had  restricted  themselves 
to  the  principal  points  and  presented  only  '-the  sum  of  the  doctrines 
hel'd  by  them,  and  taught  in  their  churches."  They  set  forth  the 
chief  or  fundamental  articles  of  faith  deemed  necessary  to  exhibit 
their  faith  in  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  furnish  a  basis  of  union 
and  fellowship  in  the  Christian  Clnirch.  They  abstained  designedly 
from  introducing  many  minor  or  nonessential  points,  as  well  as 
from  stating  the  main  or  essential  points  in  minute  and  extended 
detail.  On  the  contrary,  they  satisfied  themselves  with  originating 
but  twenty-one  articles  of  faith,  and  with  declaring  the  truths  they 
contain  in  brief  general  statements.  And  although  for  this  reason 
the  Augsburg  Confession  is  less  catholic  than  either  of  the  CEcumen- 
ical  Creeds,  it  nevertheless  partakes  more  of  their  distinguishing 
characteristics  than  it  does  of  those  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  the 
Westminister  Confession,  or  the  Form  of  Concord.  And  as  the 
OEcumenical  Creeds,  because  of  their  catholicity,  proved  themselves 
adapted  to  be  the  bond  of  union  between  the  pure  parts  of  the  Church 
Catholic  in  primitive  times,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  on  account  of 
its  catholicity,  is  pre-eminently  adapted  to  constitute  the  bond  of 
union  between  the  pure  parts  of  the  revived  primitive  and  the  re- 
formed Protestant  Church  of  modern  times.  This  has  been  verified 
in  its  history.  As  modified  and  explained  by  Melanchthon,  it  has 
not  only  been  adopted  by  all  Lutheran,  but  also  by  many  Reformed 
theologians  and  churches. 

John  Calvin  was  installed  as  pastor  and  professor  of  theology  in 
the  city  of  Strasburg  in  1538,  which  in  its  collective  capacity  had 
signed  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession.  He  signed  it  himself 
in  1539,  and  appeared  in  the  deliberations  in  1541  at  Worms  and 
Ratisbon  as  a  Lutheran  theologian.  In  referring  to  this,  Calvin 
said  :  "  Nor  do  I  repudiate  the  Augsburg  Confession  (which  I  long 
ago  willingly  and  gladly  signed)  as  explained  by  its  author."  It 
was  also  signed,  says  Dr.  Schaff,  by  Farel  and  Beza  at  the  confer- 
ence at  Worms,  in  1557  ;  by  the  Calvinists  at  Bremen,  in  156^  ;  by 


228  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Frederick  III.,  the  (Reformed)  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  at  the 
convent  of  Princes,  at  Naumburg,  in  156 1;  and  again  at  the 
Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1566;  and  by  John  Sigismund,  of  Branden- 
burg, in  T614. 

But  the  catholicity  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  not  only 
recognized  during  the  Reformation  ;  it  has  also  been  illustrated 
in  our  day.  In  1853,  a  church  diet  was  held  at  Berlin,  at  which 
more  than  1400  pastors,  professors  and  theologians  were  present, 
representing  the  four  grand  divisions  of  Protestantism  in  Europe — 
the  Lutherans,  Reformed,  the  Evangelical  Unionists,  and  the  Mo- 
ravians. It  was  deemed  expedient  to  make  a  united  confession  of 
their  faith  as  Protestants,  and  to  deliver  a  united  testimony  against 
Roman  Catholicism.  They  therefore  acknowledged  the  Augustana 
as  the  true  expression  of  their  common  Protestant  faith,  in  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "  The  members  of  the  German  Evangelical  Church 
Diet  hereby  put  on  record,  that  they  hold  and  profess  with  heart 
and  mouth,  the  Confession  delivered  A.  D.  1530,  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg,  by  the  Evangelical  Princes  and  States  to  the  Emperor 
Charles  V. ,  and  hereby  publicly  testify  their  agreement  with  it,  as 
the  oldest,  simplest  common  document  of  publicly  recognized 
Evangelical  doctrine  in  Germany."  It  was,  however,  expressly 
understood  that  they  did  not  thereby  compromise  their  respective 
positions  to  the  Tenth  Article,  and  to  the  particular  confessions  of 
their  respective  ecclesiastical  associations. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  catholicity  has  become  a  compo- 
nent confessional  part  of  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Prussia  during 
the  last  half  century.  In  view  of  the  facts  just  stated,  and  of  its 
whole  history,  Dr.  Schaff  states  that  "  Some  German  writers  of  the 
Evangelical  Unionist  school  have  based  the  hope,  that  the  Augsburg 
Confession  may  one  day  become  the  united  Confession  or  CEcumeni- 
cal  Creed  of  all  the  Evangelical  Churches  of  Germany."  This  view 
is  also  expressed  by  Gieseler,  the  distinguished  Reformed  church 
historian.  He  says  :  "If  the  question  be,  which  among  all  the 
Protestant  Confessions  is  best  adapted  for  forming  the  foundation  of 
a  union  among  Protestant  churches,  we  declare  ourselves  unre- 
servedly for  the  Augsburg  Confession." 

As  thus  distinguished,  the  Augsburg  Confession  may  justly  be  re- 
garded not  only  as  the  Oecumenical  Creed  of  the  Lutheran,  but  of 
the  whole  Protestant  Church.    Throucrh  its  recognition  of  the  CEcu- 


DR.  Conrad's  essay.  229 

menical  Creeds,  it  reaches  back  and  establishes  a  legitimate  connec- 
tion and  ecclesiastical  fellowship  with  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  of 
every  age.  For  the  Confessors  of  Augsburg  expressly  declared,  that 
they  had  adopted  no  articles  of  faith,  and  introduced  no  ceremonies 
of  religion,  which  were  inconsistent  with  those  of  the  Universal 
Christian  Church.  And  this  claim  is  established  by  its  oecumenical 
characteristics,  its  adaptation  for  promoting  Church  union,  and  by 
the  .testimony  of  true  witnesses,  down  to  the  apostolic  age.  And 
this  characteristic  of  the  Confession  we  hold  to  be  the  crown  of  its 
highest  glory. 

VII.     THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION    IS    SCRIPTURAL. 

The  Confessors  acknowledged  the  Canonical  Scriptures  to  be  the 
inspired  Word  of  God,  and  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. They  exalted  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  above  that  of  the 
fathers,  the  popes  and  the  councils,  and  recognized  them  as  the 
ultimate  umpire  by  which  all  religious  questions  must  be  decided. 
They  regarded  the  Word  of  God  as  the  true  source  of  all  confessions, 
by  which  the  correctness  of  their  statements  was  to  be  tested.  From 
the  Holy  Scriptures  they  drew  their  Confession,  and  to  their  unerr- 
ing testimony  they  appealed  for  the  verification  of  the  declarations 
it  contained. 

In  accordance  with  these  positions,  the  Confessors,  in  presenting 
their  Confession  to  the  Emperor,  declared  that  it  was  drawn  in  its 
present  form  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  that  in  the  Articles  of  Faith 
there  is  nothing  taught  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures;  that  they 
were  constrained  to  correct  the  abuses  which  existed  in  ihe  Romish 
churches  by  the  command  of  God ;  that  the  doctrines  set  forth  in 
their  Confession  were  clearly  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and 
that  they  would  not  expose  their  own  souls  and  consciences  to  the 
greatest  danger  before  God,  by  misusing  or  abusing  the  Divine  Name 
and  Word,  nor  transmit  to  their  children  and  followers  any  other 
doctrine  than  is  consonant  with  the  pure,  Divine  Word  and  Chris- 
tian truth.  And  on  these  grounds  they  claimed  that  their  Confes- 
sion was  both  "  Scriptural  and  Christia  .'' 

To  this  great  work  the  Confessors  were  called  in  the  Providence 
of  God,  and  for  its  achievement  they  possessed  the  necessary  quali- 
fications. Luther  stood  pre-eminent  as  a  Biblical  scholar,  and 
Melanchthon  was  the  first  theologian  of  his  ace.     Most  of  the  other 


230  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

theologians  were  distinguished  for  their  theological  attainments,  and 
some  of  the  Evangelical  Princes  were  well  versed  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures.  During  the  preparation  of  the  Confession,  daily 
conferences  were  held  by  the  Confessors,  at  which  Melanchthon 
submitted  the  parts  as  they  were  finished.  Every  article  was  then 
compared  with  the  Scriptures,  sentence  by  sentence,  and,  after  due 
examination,  either  accepted  or  modified,  and  then  adopted  as  con- 
sonant with  the  Word  of  God.  Luther,  to  whom  it  had  been  sub- 
mitted, subjected  it  to  a  similar  test.  In  referring  to  this  he  says  : 
"I  am  occupied  with  the  matter  day  and  night,  thinking  over  it, 
revolving  it  in  my  mind,  arguing,  searching  the  entire  Scriptures ; 
and  there  grows  upon  me  constantly  that  fullness  of  assurance  in 
this  our  doctrine,  that  is,  in  its  Scriptural  verity."  Realizing  their 
liability  to  err,  and  their  dependence  on  divine  direction,  they 
prayed  with  one  accord  for  the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  He  might  guide  them  into  the  saving  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  and  to  preserve  them  from  falling  into  error. 

And  in  this  aim  and  effort,  the  Confessors  were  successful.  Not- 
withstanding the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed, 
and  the  various  influences  to  which  they  were  exposed,  they  were 
so  directed  and  guarded  by  the  Providence  and  grace  of  God,  as  to 
bring  forth  a  Scriptural  Confession.  Some  of  its  doctrinal  state- 
ments they  made  in  the  language  of  the  Scriptures,  and  others  they 
sustained  by  relevant  proof  passages.  It  carried  this  conviction 
with  it  to  candid  minds  at  its  first  reading.  It  drew  this  acknowl- 
edgment from  the  Bishop  of  Augsburg  :  "All  that  the  Lutherans 
have  said  is  true,  and  we  cannot  deny  it."  When  the  Duke  of 
Bavaria  asked  Eck,  ''  Can  you  by  sound  reasons  refute  the  Confes- 
sion of  the  Elector  and  his  allies?"  he  replied  :  "  With  the  writings 
of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  no  ;  but  with  those  of  the  fathers  and 
councils,  yes."  His  reply  was:  "  I  understand  it.  The  Lutherans 
are  in  the  Scriptures,  and  we  are  outside  of  them." 

We  do  not,  however,  understand  the  Confessors  as  claiming  a 
Scriptural  origin  for  every  word  and  phrase,  statement  and  reference, 
in  the  Confession  ;  for  a  careful  examination  proves  that  it  con- 
tains philosophical  statements,  historical  references,  authoritative 
quotations,  individual  opinions,  and  incidental  matters,  drawn  from 
other  sources  than  the  Scriptures.  Nor  would  we  make  the  impres- 
sion that  they  were  under   a  kind    of  semi-inspiration,   rendering 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  23  I 

them  for  tlie  time  being  infallible,  and  that  in  consequence  of  such 
extraordinary  enlightenment,  they  expressed  in  every  word  and 
phrase  employed  by  them  the  exact  conception  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
for  this  is  more  than  can  be  justly  claimed  for  any  human  produc- 
tion, and  involves  both  inspiration  and  infallibility.  But  we  main- 
tain that  in  regard  to  all  the  great  truths  entering  into  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  system,  and  indispensable  to  the 
attainment  of  soundness  in  doctrine  and  purity  in  practice,  they 
did  succeed  in  discovering,  and  in  expressing  them  correctly  in 
their  Confession. 

Being  eminently  Scriptural,  it  has  carried  conviction  to  all  un- 
prejudiced minds,  and  made  converts  among  pastors  and  churches, 
princes  and  nobles,  kings  and  emperors.  It  has  won  allegiance 
from  teachers  and  professors,  and  has  transformed  schools  and  uni- 
versities. It  has  concjuered  cities  and  towns,  kingdoms  and  empires. 
As  the  source  whence  it  is  drawn  appears  the  more  pure  as  the  light 
by  which  it  is  examined  increases,  so  does  this  Confession  appear 
the  more  Scriptural,  as  the  increased  light  of  philology  and  exegesis 
has  been  thrown  upon  it.  The  profoundest  Biblical  scholars  and 
the  most  chligent  students  of  the  Confession,  have  been  the  most 
fully  convinced  of  its  truthfulness,  and  became  its  most  ardent  ad- 
mirers and  defenders.  It  still  throws  its  convincing  sceptre  over 
more  than  half  the  Protestant  world,  and  through  the  testimony  of 
millions  of  Christians  in  nearly  all  nations  and  climes,  it  vindicates 
the  claim  that  it  sets  forth  the  most  precious  truths  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures  of  God. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  not  originally  prepared  as  a  Church 
symbol.  Its  design  was  two-fold  :  first,  to  point  out  the  doctrines 
and  ceremonies  in  dispute  between  the  Protestants  and  the  Catho- 
lics ;  and  secondly,  to  refute  the  slanders  that  had  been  circulated 
concerning  the  doctrines  held  by  the  Confessors.  The  Articles  of 
Faith  were  accordingly  presented  in  the  form  of  a  Confession,  and 
the  Abuses  Corrected  in  that  of  an  Apology.  It  was  not  regarded 
as  complete  in  its  original  form,  and  hence  it  received  many 
changes  from  the  hand  of  Melanchthon  in  subsequent  editions, 
culminating  in  that  of  1540.  These  changes  were  intendctl  by 
their  author  to  be  improvements,  and  were  regarded  as  such  by 
his  contemporaries.  Nor  was  the  course  pursued  by  Melanchthon 
in  this  respect  singular.      The  Romanists  made  changes   in   their 


232  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Confutation  after  it  was  presented  to  the  Diet.  Melanchthon  did 
the  same  with  his  Apology  in  reply  to  it ;  and  Luther  took  the 
same  liberty  with  the  Smalcald  Articles  after  their  first  presentation. 
From  all  of  which  it  is  manifest,  that  during  the  lives  of  Luther 
and  Melanchthon,  the  formative  period  of  the  Reformation,  the 
text  of  the  original  Confession  was  not  regarded  as  sacred  and  un- 
changeable, and  that  the  edition  of  1530  had  not  yet  been  invested 
with  any  special  confessional  authority. 

The  statement  made  in  the  Confession,  that  it  contained  "about 
the  sum  of  the  doctrines,"  taught  by  the  Protestant  pastors  in  their 
churches,  was  true,  but  neither  the  pastors  nor  the  churches  had 
ever  formally  adopted  or  subscribed  it.  But  when  it  became  mani- 
fest that  the  questions  at  issue  could  not  be  satisfactorily  settled  ; 
that  a  separation  between  the  Protestants  and  Romanists  was  in- 
evitable; and  that  necessity  was  laid  upon  Luther  and  his  coadju- 
tors to  organize  the  Evangelical,  as  the  revived  primitive.  Catholic 
Church,  then  a  creed,  to  serve  as  a  basis  of  organization  and  a  bond 
of  ecclesiastical  union,  became  indispensable,  and  the  Augsburg 
Confession  was  appropriated  to  this  purpose  by  common  consent. 
The  edition  selected  was  that  of  1530,  edited  by  Melanchthon  him- 
self. It  is  known  as  the  editio  princeps,  and  is  universally  recog- 
nized as  the  symbolic  standard  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  Augsburg  Confession,  as  the  mother  symbol  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, has  exerted  a  controUing  influence  in  the  preparation  of  a  num- 
ber of  other  Protestant  confessions.  It  was  selected  by  Zinzendorf 
as  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Moravian  Church.  It,  together  with 
the  Wurtemberg  Confession,^  furnished  Cranmer  with  the  matter 
for  the  compilation  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  which,  with  some  modifications,  have  also  become  the  doc- 
trinal standard  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  also  furn- 
ished Ursinus,  a  disciple  of  Melanchthon,  and  a  co  worker  with 
Olevianus,  a  disciple  of  Calvin,  in  the  preparation  of  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism,  the  general  symbol  of  the  German  and  Dutch  Re- 
formed Churches.  It  has  thus  through  its  moulding  influence 
stamped  its  impress,  directly  and  indirectly,  upon  all  branches  of 
the  Protestant  Church. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  stands  pre-eminent,  not  only  among  the 
Lutheran  symbols,  but  among  all  the  creeds  of  Christendom.  This 
position  is  accorded  to  it,  not  alone  by  Lutheran,  but  also  by  dis- 
tinguished Reformed  witnesses. 


DR.  CONRAD  S    ESSAY.  233 

Dr.  Srhaff  says:  "  The  Augsburg  Confession  is  the  fundamental 
and  generally  received  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  *  *  * 
It  is  inseparable  from  the  theology  and  history  of  that  denomina- 
tion ;  it  best  exhibits  the  prevailing  genius  of  the  German  Reforma- 
tion. But  its  influence  extends  far  beyond  the  Lutheran  Church. 
It  struck  the  key-note  to  other  evangelical  confessions,  and  strength- 
ened the  cause  of  the  Reformation  everywhere,  and  it  will  ever  be 
cherished  as  one  of  the  noblest  monuments  of  faith  from  the  Pente- 
costal period  of  Protestantism."  Spalatin  said  "  It  is  a  Confession 
the  like  of  which  has  not  been  promulgated  for  a  thousand  years." 
D'Aubigne,  the  distinguished  Calvinistic  historian  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, testifies  :  "This  Confession  of  Augsburg  will  forever  remain 
one  of  the  master-pieces  of  the  human  mind,  enlightened  by  the 
Spirit  of  God." 

The  influence  and  value  of  the  Confession  can  scarcely  be  over- 
estimated. As  a  Confession,  it  is  a  faithful  witness  of  the  truth, 
and  bears  unimpeachable  testimony  against  error.  As  an  Apology, 
it  is  a  complete  vindication  of  Protestantism  and  an  unanswerable 
arraignment  of  Romanism.  As  Pro:estant,  it  is  the  magna  charta 
of  liberty  to  the  State,  and  a  declaration  of  independence  to  the 
Church.  As  evangelical,  it  publishes  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation 
by  grace,  through  faith  alone  in  Jesus  Christ.  As  orthodox,  it 
condemns  heresy,  and  excludes  heretics  from  its  fellowship.  As 
Lutheran,  it  sets  forth  the  distinctive  doctrines  and  principles  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  As  conservative,  it  proves  all  things 
and  holds  fast  that  which  is  good.  As  catholic,  it  recognizes  the 
priesthood  of  believers,  and  acknowledges  their  right  to  the  com- 
munion of  saints.  And  as  Scriptural,  it  holds  forth  the  Word  of 
Life,  as  the  only  hope  of  salvation  to  a  ruined  world. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  C.  P.  KRAUTH,  D.  D.,  LT-.  D.     {General  Council.) 

Dr.  Krauth  said  that  various  statements  in  the  elaborate  essay  of 
Dr.  Conrad  needed  further  elucidation.  Two  lines  of  thinking  ran 
through  it,  which  did  not  always  seem  in  perfect  accord.  Melanch- 
thon  was  not  strictly  the  author  of  the  Confession,  but  rather  its 
composer.  As  an  official  paper,  it  belongs  to  those  who  signed  it, 
and  gave  it  to  the  Emperor,  and  to  those  in  who.se  name  they  were 
16 


234  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

entitled  to  act.  Once  delivered,  neither  Melanchthon,  nor  the 
signers,  had  any  moral  right  to  set  forth  a  changed  document  as 
the  document  laid  before  the  Diet  of  the  Empire.  A  Confession 
varied  purely  in  verbal  respects  might  be  but  a  perilous  impropriety, 
but  a  Confession  varied  in  meaning  would  be  a  fraud  and  falsehood. 
Those  who  say  that  Melanchthon  in  the  Variata  introduced  changes 
in  doctrine,  charge  him  with  immorality  of  a  gross  kind,  the  charge 
being  made  more  severe  by  the  fact  that  he  disavows  having  made 
any  change  whatever  in  the  sense. 

Zwingli's  Fidei  Ratio,  which  he  sent  to  the  Emperor,  is  dated 
July  3d,  1530,  and  could  hardly  have  influenced  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, which  had  been  read  the  25th  of  the  month  previous.  The 
conception  of  influence  which  runs  through  part  of  the  essay  seems 
vague  and  conflicting.  The  doctrine  was  fixed  before  the  Diet 
met,  and  embodied  in  Luther's  Seventeen  Articles,  and  as  Dr.  Con- 
rad shows,  was  rightly  fixed  and  rightly  confessed. 

Philip  of  Hesse  was  a  blot  on  the  whole  fair  fame  of  the  Refor- 
mation— involving  Luther  in  the  only  transaction  of  his  life  which 
requires  a  defence.  Philip,  a  young  man  at  the  time  of  the  Diet, 
was  eager  for  political  combination,  and  his  zeal  for  or  against  the 
dividing  doctrines  of  Luther  and  Zwingli  was  not  very  great.  He 
insisted  that  Zwingli's  deviation  from  Luther  was  verbal  merely. 
Were  it  true  that,  although  he  rejected  the  Tenth  Article,  he  was 
urged  to  sign  the  Confession,  it  might  well  be  asked  why  the  Zvvin- 
glians  at  large  were  excluded  ?  why  the  Tetrapolitans  were  not  in- 
cluded? But  the  facts  are  these  :  Philip  was  one  of  the  Lutheran 
Princes.  The  Reformation  in  Hesse  had  been  conducted  in  accord- 
ance with  Melanchthon's  counsel.  The  political  Unionism  of  Philip, 
inspired  however  great  hopes  on.  the  part  of  the  Zwinglians,  that 
negatively  at  least  he  would  help  them.  Luther,  at  Melanchthon's 
urgent  request,  wrote  to  Philip  to  counteract  this  influence  (May 
20,  1530).  Whatever  sympathy  Philip  felt  with  the  Zwinglians, 
when  the  time  of  signing  the  Confession  approached,  was  secret. 


DISCUSSION.  235 

Philip  signed  the  Confession,  and  thus  in  the  most  solemn  manner 
declared  it  to  be  his  faith.  If  he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  Tenth 
Article,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  false  doctrine,  he  made  himself  a 
perjured  man  in  signing  it.  When,  on  June  23d,  the  Confession 
was  read  in  full  assembly  of  the  orders  for  the  very  purpose  of 
giving  opportunity  for  any  suggestion,  it  was  approved  by  all  and 
each — the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  included.  When,  on  the  24th  of 
June,  the  question  was  raised  whether  the  request  of  the  Emperor 
should  be  granted  to  have  it  merely  handed  to  him  in  writing,  the 
Landgrave  led  the  opposition  to  his  wish,  and  insisted  that  it  should 
be  read  publicly  before  the  Estates  of  the  Realm,  and  it  was  so  read 
the  next  day.  And  it  is  Erhard  Schnepf,  the  Landgrave's  court 
preacher,  who  was  present  through  the  whole,  who  says  expressly, 
that  not  one  of  those  who  took  part  in  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
and  was  admitted  to  the  discussions,  held  the  view  of  the  Zwingli- 
ans.  On  the  25  th  of  June,  perhaps  while  the  Confession  was  actu- 
ally being  read,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther:  "The  Landgrave 
approves  of  our  Confession,  and  has  signed  it."  The  day  after, 
Melanchthon  wrote  to  Vitus  Theodoras:  "The  Landgrave  has 
signed  with  us  in  the  Confession,  in  which  is  also  an  Article  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  in  accordance  with  the  judgment  of  Luther."  He 
was  not  allowed  to  sign  it  with  any  expressed  reservation  as  to  doc- 
trine, whatever. 

The  Wittenberg  Concord  hardly  seems  in  place  in  a  statement 
of  the  influences  which  shaped  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  it  was 
not  prepared  till  1536.  It  is  not  a  concession  to  Zwinglianism,  nor 
Calvinism,  but  is  a  powerful  rejection  and  exposure  of  it,  from  Lu- 
ther's own  hand.  None  but  a  Lutheran  could  sign  it  in  good  faith. 
Bucer  in  signing  it  professed  to  abandon  the  Zwinglian  view,  and 
to  come  over  to  Luther's.  The  honest  Zwinglians  rejected  the 
Concord,  and  repelled  Bucer  when  he  attempted  to  bring  them  to 
accord  with  it,  and  treated  him  as  an  apostate.  When  Luther 
spoke  of  the  Swiss  as  "  dear  brethren,"  it  was  under  an  impression 


236  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

easily  made  upon  liis  guileless  and  loving  nature,  that  they  had  act- 
ually come  to  the  recognition  of  the  truth,  and  his  feeling  that  he 
had  been  deluded  in  this  was  the  cause  of  his  later  bitterness. 

It  is  not  a  correct  statement  that  the  Romanists  did  not  object  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Tenth  Article  Dr.  Krauth  then  read  from  the 
Romish  Confutation,  what  is  said  on  the  Tenth  Article,  They 
object  that  it  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  concomitance,  by 
which  the  Romish  Church  justifies  the  Communion  in  one  kind, 
and  insists  that  it  is  extremely  necessary  to  the  Article,  that  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  shall  be  added  to  it. 

The  Lutheran  Church  does  not  define  the  mode  of  presence ;  that 
is,  does  not  attempt  to  solve  to  human  reason  how  so  great  a  thing 
can  be;  but  the  kind oi  presence  she  does  define  as  real,  superna- 
tural, substantial  presence,  as  against  what  is  imaginary  or  subject- 
ive. She  denies  that  it  is  in  that  sense  spiritual,  yet  she  holds  that 
it  is  spiritual  as  against  the  carnal.  If  the  mode  of  presence  were  a 
presence  to  memory  or  faith,  there  could  be  no  difficulty  in  stating 
it.  It  is  a  deep  and  vital  question,  and  the  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion are  so  far-reaching,  that  if  our  Church  is  wrong — if  she  holds 
that  something  is  really  Christ's  body  and  blood,  which  He  clearly 
teaches  is  no  more  than  bread  and  wine—  instead  of  standing  up  as 
a  great  witness  for  truth  in  the  world,  she  should  be  willing  to  fall 
humbly  at  the  feet  of  a  little  child  which  has  the  true  mind  of  the 
Spirit,  and  ask  that  child  to  teach  her.  In  regard  to  the  Variata  in 
the  Lutheran  Church,  the  truth  is  that  Melanchthon  constantly 
affirmed  that  its  doctrine  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession ;  that  after  its  appearance,  he  repeatedly,  in  solemn  public 
testification,  accepted  the  Unchanged  Confession  and  the  Apology, 
and  rejected  Zwinglianism  in  the  strongest  terms.  So  long  as  the 
Lutheran  Church  believed  that  there  was  no  change  of  meaning,  and 
solely  because  of  this  belief,  the  Variata  was  tolerated.  In  the  Diet  of 
the  Princes,  at  Naumburg,  1561,  the  various  later  editions  of  the 
Confession  were  recognized,  because  of  their  greater  explicitness 


DISCUSSION.  237 

against  Romish  errors,  hut  the  ori^j;inal  edition  of  ISJO  alone  was 
subscribed.  From  tlie  liour  that  the  Variata  began  to  be  regarded 
as  having  changed  the  doctrine  or  rendered  it  ambiguous,  all  gen- 
uine Lutherans  set  themselves  against  it. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  offers  a  point  of  union  for  divided 
Protestantism,  but  union  will  be  effected  neither  by  Variatas  in  the 
Creed,  which  change  the  words,  nor  by  Variatas  in  men,  which 
keep  the  word,  but  change  the  sense  or  repudiate  it.  When  men 
are  agreed  in  a  hearty  and  intelligent  acceptance  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  the  Formula  of  Concord  will  form  no  barrier  between 
them.  Dr.  Conrad  is  an  enthusiast  for  union  in  our  Church,  but 
there  can  be  no  union  except  in  the  unity  of  the  truth.  Till  he 
realizes  this,  his  toils  will  be  in  vain. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  PROF.  J-  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.  {General  Synott.) 
We  are  a  little  surprised  to  find  Dr.  Conrad  repeating  the  state- 
ment of  the  Augsburg  Confession  being  sent  to  Luther  '■'■between 
the  22d  of  May  and  the  2d  of  June,  and  again  securing  Luther' s 
unqualified  approval.'"  We  challenge  the  proof  of  this  fact.  We 
have  a  right  to  be  furnished  with  the  evidence  on  which  it  rests  ;  and 
in  the  absence  of  any  reliable  testimony  to  the  fact,  we  pronounce 
it  a  myth.  We  speak  advisedly  on  this  subject.  We  do  not  need 
to  prove  a  negative,  but  we  have  asked,  and  now  ask  again,  for  any 
such  proof  as  would  satisfy  an  intelligent  and  impartial  judge.  If 
there  is  any  such  proof,  let  it  be  forthcoming,  for  we  regard  that 
usually  adduced  utterly  unreliable  and  unsatisfactory.  As  Dr. 
Krauth  has  endorsed  the  statement  of  Dr.  Conrad,  we  now,  in  the 
presence  of  this  Diet,  challenge  them  both  to  furnish,  in  the  Church 
papers  or  elsewhere,  such  evidence  as  would  be  accepted  in  any 
court,  or  satisfy  any  impartial  jury.  We  simply  deny  that  they  have 
given  us  any  reliable  evidence  for  their  allegations,  and  we  hold 
them  to  the  proof. 

A  few  questions  were  asked  by  Dr.  ^Lxnn  and  answered  by  Dr. 
Conrad. 


238  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

NOTE  OF  DR.  KRAUTH  IN  ANSWER  TO  DR.  BROWN'S 
CHALLENGE. 

In  the  Conservative  Reformation,  p.  232,  it  is  said  that  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  "was  sent  as  nearly  as  possible  in  its  complete 
shape  to  Luther  for  a  third  time,  before  it  was  delivered,  and  was 
approved  by  him  in  what  may  probably  be  called  its  final  form." 
This  is  the  statement  which  we  understood  Dr.  Conrad  to  endorse, 
and  Dr.  Brown  to  challenge.  If  the  emphasis  is  on  June  2d,  we 
do  not  endorse  Dr.  Conrad,  nor  deny  Dr.  Brown's  statement.  It 
was  the  third  sending  in  which  we  were  interested,  and  of  which 
we  spoke. 

1.  The  first  sending  of  the  Confession  to  Luther  was  May  nth, 
by  the  Elector;  the  second  May  22d,  by  Melanchthon.  These  are 
undisputed.  The  question  is,  was  there  a  later  sending — that  is,  be- 
tween May  22d  and  June  25th  {?iot  June  2d^ — an  interval  of  about 
five  weeks. 

2.  The  evidence  relied  upon  is  Melanchthon's  own  statement. 
It  is  found  /.,  in  the  preface  to  his  Book  of  Christian  Doctrine 
(Corpus  Doctrinse)  1560  and  1563;  //.,  in  the  preface  of  the  first 
volume  of  the  Wittenberg  Edition  of  his  works,  1560  and  1601 ; 
Hi.,  in  the  Corpus  Reformatorum,  vol.  ix..  No.  6932 — these  are  in 
Latin;  iv.,  the  German  Preface  is  found  in  the  German  Corpus, 
1560.     All  these  texts  have  been  carefully  compared. 

I.  In  giving  an  account  of  the  preparation  of  the  Confession  of 
what  he  styles  "Luther's  Doctrine,"  Melanchthon  says  that  he  does 
so  "because  it  is  necessary  that  posterity  should  know,  that  our 
Confession  was  not  written  as  an  individual  matter.  The  princes 
and  officials  whose  names  follow  the  Confession,  believed  that  it 
should  be  offered  as  evidence  that  they  had  not  acted  in  levity,  or 
impelled  by  any  unlawful  desire,  but  that  for  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  salvation  of  their  own  souls,  and  the  souls  of  many,  they  had 
embraced  the  purer  doctrine." 

II.  "I  brought  together,  therefore,  in  singleness  of  purjxjse,  the 


DISCUSSION.  239 

principal    points   of   the   Confession,   whicli  is  extant,  embracing 
pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Churches." 

III.  "I  assumed  nothing  to  myself.  For  in  the  presence  of  the 
Princes  and  other  officials,  and  of  the  preachers,  it  was  discussed 
and  determined  upon  in  regular  course,  sentence  by  sentence." 

IV.  "The  complete  form  {tota  forma)  of  the  Confession  was 
subsequently  (deinde)  sent  to  Luther,  who  wrote  to  the  Princes  that 
he  had  both  read  the  (literally  this,  hanc)  Confession,  and  approved 
it." 

V.  "That  these  things  were  so,  the  Princes  and  other  honest 
and  learned  men,  yet  living,  will  remember." 

VI.  "  After  this  (postea ),  before  the  Emperor  Charles,  in  a  great 
assembly  of  the  Princes,  this  Confession  was  read  " 

This  passage  of  Melanchthon  was  adduced  to  confute  the 
theory  of  Riickert,  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  meant  to  be 
a  compromise  with  Rome,  and  was  consequently  kept  back  from 
Luther,  for  fear  he  would  spoil  the  scheme.  We  think  we  may 
claim  that  the  citations  in  the  Conservative  Reformation  (22S-232) 
have  disposed  of  Riickert's  theory.  Those  inclined  to  favor  it  have 
made  a  little  battle  on  the  point  now  before  us,  but  if  they  could 
sustain  their  denial,  so  far  as  to  throw  it  entirely  out,  they  would 
simply  remove  it  from  an  argument  which  is  convincing  without  it. 
But  it  is  evident,  further,  that  the  moral  value  of  this  citation,  for 
its  purpose,  is  by  no  means  dependent  on  any  question  of  date.  If 
we  were  to  grant  that  it  does  not  prove  a  third  sending  of  the 
Confession  to  Luther,  it  yet  proves  that  what  Melanchthon  iden- 
tifies with  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  delivered,  was  read  and 
approved  by  Luther  before  it  was  presented.  His  whole  statement 
is  reduced  to  falsehood  or  nonsense  on  any  other  supposition. 

The  question  of  dates,  then,  becomes  one  simply  of  chronological 
interest,  and  here,  if  it  be  granted  that  Melanchthon  is  a  competent 
witness,  there  is  no  great  hazard  in  taking  up  the  glove  so  daunt- 
lessly  thrown  down,  unless  the  date,  June  2d,  be  the  main  point. 
Note  then: 


240  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

1.  That  what  Luther  passed  upon  is  defined  as  the  "Confession, 
now  extant,"  which  Melanchthon,  quoting  in  substance  its  own 
phrase,  characterizes  as  "embracing  pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the 
doctrine  of  our  churches."^  This  imphes  that  the  Confession,  when 
Luther's  judgment  was  given,  was  in  such  a  state  of  substantial 
completeness  as  to  make  it  morally  identical  \v\\\\  the  one  delivered. 

2.  It  is  expressly  and  emphatically  said,  so  as  to  be  essential  to 
Melanchthon's  whole  argument,  that  the  '■'■  tota  forma''' — the  com- 
plete Confession — as  contrasted  with  any  earlier  and  imperfect  form 
of  the  Confession,  was  sent  to  Luther. 

3.  It  was  sent  after  the  discussion  and  deterinination  of  it,  in  reg- 
ular order,  article  by  article  as  it  came,  and  sentence  by  sentence, 
before  and  by  princes,  officials  and  theologians. 

4.  It  was  returned  by  Luther  with  a  letter  to  the  Princes,  saying 
that  he  approved  it. 

5.  After  this  return  of  this  Complete  Confession,  it  was  presented 
(June  25th)  to  Charles  V. 

Let  us  now  see  how  these  facts  bear  on  the  question  of  dates. 

I.  The  endorsement  of  Luther,  of  which  Melanchthon's  Preface 
speaks,  can  not  be  of  the  Confession  sent  May  nth. 2  That  was 
not  the  '^  tota  forma,''  but  relatively  unfinished  :  that  had  not  been 
discussed  before  the  princes,  officials  and  preachers,  for  they  were  not 
yet  present.  The  Landgrave  of  Hesse  came  May  12  ;  the  Nurem- 
bergers  May  15,  and  others  still  later.  Nor  was  it  then  meant  that 
the  Confession  should  be  made  in  the  name  of  all  the  Evangelical 
States.  It  was  to  be  limited  to  Saxony.  The  Elector  wrote  to 
Luther,  May  11,  sending  him  the  Confession,  treating  it  purely  as 
a  matter  in  his  own  hands,  and  the  hands  of  his  theologians,  and 

'  In  Melanchthon's  Preface  :  Complexus  paene  summam  docirinae  Ecclesi- 
arum  nostrum.  In  the  Confession  (xxii.)  :  Haec  fere  summa  est  doctrinae 
apud  nos  ;  in  the  German  :  "  in  unserm  Kirchtn  ;"  and  again  in  the  epilogue, 
doctrinse  summa. 

2  Melanchthon's   Letter;     Corpus    Reformator.,   ii.,  No.   685.       Coelestinus, 
.,  41  a. 


DISCUSSION.  241 

giving  Luther  unlimited  right  to  adapt  it  to  his  judgment  of  what 
was  best.''  Luther's  reply  to  this  letter  (May  15)^  was  not,  and 
could  not  be,  to  the  princes,  but  was  to  John  of  Saxony  alone, 
who,  up  to  May  1 1  (with  his  suite),  was  the  only  one  of  the  princes 
at  Augsburg,  and  who,  as  his  letter  shows,  expected  to  deliver  this 
very  Confession  of  May  11  to  the  Emperor. 

2.  But  neither  can  Melanchthon's  words  refer  to  the  copy  sent 
May  2  2d.  George  of  Brandenburg  did  not  come  till  May  24th. 
May  24th  Pontanus,  the  Chancellor  of  Saxony,  was  taking  part  in 
finishing  the  Confession,  as  purely  in  the  hands  of  Saxony. 

May  28th,  the  Saxon  theologians  and  counsellor  were  alone  in 
examining  the  Confession.  Up  to  June  8th  the  Confession  had 
been  worked  upon  exclusively  in  the  name  of  the  Elector  of  Sax- 
ony, and  is  styled  the  "Saxon  Counsel"  (Rathschlus)  or  Statement 
(Verzeichniss),  and  designated  as  the  work  of  the  "Saxon  theolo- 
gians," by  the  Nuremberg  Legates,  up  to  June  8,''  and  retrospec- 
tively even  up  to  June  15th.'' 

The  movement  was  now  made,  that  the  entire  body  of  the  Prot- 
estants (Lutherans)  should  be  conjoined  with  the  Elector,  in  offer- 
ing the  Confession  "in  the  name  of  all  the  United  Lutheran  Princes 
and  Estates,"  requiring  the  substitution  throughout  of  a  general 
term,  in  place  of  the  exclusive  reference  to  Saxony.'  Not  until 
a/^er  May  2 2d,  therefore,  could  that  conjoint  discussion  in  the  pres- 
ence of  tlie  Princes  and  other  officials  have  taken  place,  which 
Melanchthon  declares  preceded  the  sending  to  Luther  of  that  tota 

3The  Elector  to  Luther:  Corpus  Reformat.,  ii.,  No.  798.  Luther's Werke 
Leipzig,  XX.,  173;  Walch.,  xvi.,  785. 

•*  Luther  to  the  Elector;  Briefe;  Do  Witte.,  iv.,  17.  Werke:  Leipzig,  xx.. 
p.  173.  Walch.  xvi.,  786.  Chytraeus  Ilistoria  (German),  xxviii,  p.  3c.  Ir 
Latin,   Coelestinus  i.,  40-42.     Buddeus,  93. 

5  Corpus  Reformat.,  ii.,  No.  712,  715. 
*  Do.,  No  723. 

'Do.  do.  See  Lihri  Symbolic.  Eccl.  Luth.,  Ed.  Francke,  1S47.  Prolego- 
mena :  xviii.,  No.  16. 


242  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

forma,  which  he  identifies  with  the  Confession  read  before  the 
Emperor  and  then  extant. 

Rev.  Dr.  Greenwald,  the  author  of  the  next  paper,  was  unable  to 
be  present.  Rev.  D.  H.  Geissinger  appeared  as  his  representative, 
with  the  essay  that  had  been  prepared.  Owing  to  the  necessity 
which  would  not  allow  the  presence,  beyond  Friday  evening,  of 
several  of  the  remaining  essayists,  the  Diet,  with  great  regret,  sus- 
pended the  regular  order.  It  was  hoped  that  time  would  still  be 
found  for  Dr.  Greenwald's  essay,  at  a  succeeding  place.  But  as  all 
the  time  of  the  Diet,  up  to  the  adjournment,  was  filled  by  the  re- 
maining essays,  and  it  became  manifest  that  an  additional  session 
could  not  be  held  on  Saturday  morning,  it  was  resolved  to  print 
Dr.  Greenwald's  essay  in  the  proceedings.  It  is  accordingly  given 
in  the  place  where  it  properly  belongs. 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  SPIRITUALITY  IX  THE 
LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

BY   REV.  E.  GREENWALD,  D.  D.,  LANCASTER,  PA. 

THE  Apostle  Paul  describes  sound  Christians,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  others  who  are  not  sound,  by  applying  to  them 
the  expression,  "Ye  which  are  spiritual."     Gal.  6:  i. 

JVho  are  They  That  are  Spiritual? 

The  word  "spiritual"  both  in  the  original  Greek  and  in  our 
English  translation  is  derived  from  the  word  that  designates  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  divine  Author  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul  of  man. 
It  denotes  the  effects  produced  in  the  soul,  by  the  gracious  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  means  spiritual  in  opposition  to  car- 
nal— heavenly-minded  in  distinction  from  worldly-minded — a  de- 
vout, pious,  godly  spirit,  the  reverse  of  a  prayerless,  irreligious, 
sensual  spirit.  A  spiritual  man  is  a  godly  man  ;  one  who  loves 
God,  communes  with  God,  bears  the  image  of  God,  has  the  spirit 
of  God.  A  spiritual  man  possesses  deep  spirituality,  cultivates  fer- 
vent devotion,  and  has  the  same  mind  in  him  that  was  in  Christ. 
A  spiritual  man  is  a  man  of  sound  piety,  relishes  the  presence  of 
God,  and  walks  in  near  and  most  intimate  fellowship  with  God.  A 
spiritual  man  has  the  mind  of  God,  breathes  the  spirit  of  God, 
lives  the  life  of  God. 

This  spiritual  nature  results  from  the  mystical  union  with  Christ, 
which  is  effected  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  His  application 
of  Christ's  redemption  to  man.  Union  with  God  is  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  By  His  mighty  working  in  the  heart  of  man,  through 
the  Word  of  God,  which  is  spirit  and  life,  through  the  Holy 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  by  which  Christ  is  put  on  and  the  man 
is  made  a  partaker  of  Christ's  life,  and  through  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  which  Christ's  body  and  blood 
nourishes  and  develops  and  matures  the  divine  life  in  the  soul,  this 
mystical  union  is  bi  ought  about  and  continued.  God  dwells  in  the 
believer. 

(243) 


244  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

This  union  with  Christ  is  directly  taught  in  many  passages  of 
God's  Word.  Christ  Himself  says,  John  xiv  :  23,  "If  a  man  lo'/e  me 
he  will  keep  my  words,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  Paul  says,  i  Cor. 
vi :  15-17,  '-'Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the  members  of 
Christ?"  "  for  two  shall  be  one  flesh.  But  he  that  is  joined  to  the 
Lord  is  one  spirit."  Eph.  v  :  30  :  "For  we  are  members  of  his 
body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones."  Gal.  ii :  20.  "I  am  crucified 
with  Christ,  nevertheless  I  live  ;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me; 
and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the 
Son  of  God  who  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  me."  Peter  says, 
2  Peter  i  :  4,  "Whereby  are  given  unto  us  exceeding  great  and 
precious  promises,  that  by  these  ye  might  be  partakers  of  the 
divine  nature."  From  these,  and  many  other  passages  of  like 
import,  we  learn  the  great  doctrine  of  the  mystical  union  of  the  be- 
liever with  God.  It  is  the  source  of  all  true  spiritual  life  in  him. 
He  is  "spiritual"  because  he  sustains  this  relation  to  Christ,  has 
this  union  with  Him,  and  lives  not  his  own  life,  but  Christ's  life  in 
him. 

By  this  indwelling  of  God  in  man,  is  meant  more  than  the  resem- 
blance of  man's  spirit  to  God's  spirit,  or  the  conformity  of  man's 
will  to  the  divine  will.  This,  of  course,  exists  in  the  case  of  all 
true  believers  in  Christ.  But  the  relation  of  regenerated  man  to 
God,  and  the  nature  of  spiritual  life  in  him,  are  more  substantial 
and  thorough  than  even  this.  It  will  be  profitable  to  quote  on  this 
point,  the  matured  sentiments  of  some  of  the  old  divines  of  our 
Church. 

Says  Quenstedt,  that  prince  of  theologians  :  "The  mystical  union 
does  not  consist  merely  in  the  harmony  and  tempering  of  the  afl'ec- 
tions,  as  when  the  soul  of  Jonathan  was  knit  with  the  soul  of  David, 
I  Sam.  xviii  :  i,  but  in  a  true,  real,  literal,  and  most  intimate  union; 
for  Christ  uses  the  expression,  ''as  thou.  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in 
thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us.'  To  be  in  some  one,  implies 
the  real  presence  of  the  thing  which  is  said  to  be  in,  not  figuratively, 
as  a  lover  in  the  beloved." 

"The  mystical  union  is  the  real  and  most  intimate  conjunction  of 
the  substance  of  the  Sacred  Trinity  and  the  God-man  Christ,  with  the 
substance  of  believers,  effected  by  God  Himself  through  the  Gospel, 
the  Sacraments,  and  faith  by  which,  through  a  special  approxima- 


DR.    GKEENWALD  S    ESSAY.  245 

tion  of  His  essence,  and  by  a  gracious  operation,  He  is  in  them, 
just  as  also  believers  are  in  Him,  that,  by  a  mutual  and  reciprocal 
immanence,  or  indwelling,  they  may  partake  of  His  vivifying  power, 
and  all  His  mercies,  become  assured  of  the  grace  of  God  and  eternal 
salvation,  and  preserve  unity  in  the  faith,  and  love,  with  all  the 
other  members  of  His  mystical  body." 

Calcvius,  another  of  our  old  divines,  says  :  "  The  mystical  union 
of  Christ  with  the  believer,  is  a  true,  and  real,  and  most  intimate 
conjunction  of  the  divine  and  human  nature  of  the  theanthropic 
Christ  with  a  regenerated  man,  which  is  effected  by  the  virtue  of 
the  merit  of  Christ  through  the  Word  and  Sacraments ;  so  that 
Christ  constitutes  a  spiritual  unit  with  the  regenerated  person,  and 
operates  in  him,  and  through  him;  and  those  things  which  the  be- 
liever does  or  suffers.  He  appropriates  to  Himself,  so  that  ti.e  man 
does  not  live,  as  to  his  spiritual  and  divine  life,  of  himself,  but  by 
the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  until  he  is  taken  to  heaven." 

In  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  assertion  that  "  not  God  him- 
self, but  only  the  gifts  of  God,  dwell  in  believers,"  is  designated  as 
false.  It  is  further  declared,  that  "  the  essence  of  the  subjects  to  be 
united  are  on  the  one  part,  the  divine  substance  of  the  whole 
Trinity,  and  the  substance  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  On  the 
other  part,  the  substance  of  believers,  as  to  body  and  soul." 

This  mystical  union  with  Christ,  as  thus  described,  being  God 
dwelling  in  us,  and  united  with  us,  a  partaking  of  the  divine  na- 
ture, having  the  life  of  Christ  living  in  us,  so  that  the  motions  of 
godly  living  are  not  our  own,  but  Christ's,  who  is  our  life — this 
union  with  Christ  is  the  well  spring  of  all  our  spiritual  character. 
It  is  the  source  of  its  existence,  and  constitutes  its  peculiar  nature. 
Christians  are  spiritual  because  God  dwells  in  them,  and  the  life 
they  life  in  the  flesh  is  not  their  own,  but  Christ's  who  liveth  in 
them. 

Concerning  this  union  with  Christ  as  the  source  and  spring  of 
our  spiritual  life,  we  remark  several  things : 

I.   //  is  not  Natural. 
The  natural  spirit,  and  disposition,  and  life,  in  man,  are  directly 
the  reverse  of  this.     Our  natural  birth  is  a  birth  in  sin,  with  a  de- 
praved nature,  and  with  a  spirit  that  is  carnal,  sensual,  worldly,  and 
devilish.     The  natural  niin^l  receiveth  not  these  things,  is  hostile  to 


246  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

them;  they  are  foolishness  to  it;  and  because  they  are  spiritually  dis- 
cerned, it,  not  being  spiritual,  but  carnal,  cannot  discern,  or  appre- 
ciate, or  exercise  them.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh, 
that  only  which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit. 

2.  It  is  not  the  Result  of  Human  Will,  or  Power,  or  Work. 

As  it  is  a  new  or  spiritual  birth,  in  contradistinction  to  the  natural 
birth,  it  is  expressly  declared  by  St.  John  to  be  a  spiritual  man, 
produced  by  "the  power  of  God,"  and  "born,  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  It 
is  a  spiritual  creation.  Being  the  opposite  of  a  human  birth,  it  is 
necessarily  a  divine  birth. 

3.  //  is  the  Work  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  divine  agent  that  produces  it,  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  He  that 
works  all  our  works  in  us,  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  Being  the  spirit  of 
life,  He  gives  spiritual  life  to  us, — as  the  Holy  Ghost  he  sanctifies 
us — as  the  third  Person  of  the  (?<7^-head.  He  makes  us  partakers  of 
the  divine  nature.  What  He  does,  God  does,  for  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God. 

4.  The  Holy  Ghost  does  this  only  through  the  Blessed  Means  of 
Grace,  His  Word  and  Sacraments. 
The  Word  is  one  of  the  means  of  grace,  which  "acts  by  a  true, 
real,  divine,  and  ineffable  influx  of  its  gracious  power,  so  that  it 
effectually  and  truly  converts,  illuminates  and  unites  with  Christ, 
the  Holy  Spirit  operating  in,  with,  and  through  it,  thus  constituting 
it  a  divine,  and  not  a  human  word."  Jesus  himself  says,  "My 
words,  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life."  Baptism,  which  is  a  Sa- 
crament, not  of  one  element,  water,  only,  but  of  two  elements, 
water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  another  means  of  grace,  through 
which  grace  is  given ;  we  are  baptized  into  Christ,  put  on  Christ, 
become  children  of  God,  and  are  made  to  partake  of  the  divine 
nature,  for  Jesus  expressly  called  it  being  "born  again  of  water  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,''  John  iii.  5  ;  and  St.  Paul  directly  describes  it  as 
being  the  "washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  Lord's  Supper,  too,  is  a  means  of  grace,  and  aids  in 
promoting  this  union  with  Christ,  and  divine  life  in  the  soul,  since 
Jesus,  in  obvious  reference  to  this  Sacrament,  and  to  its  spiritual 
effects,  declares,  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh,  and  drink  the  blood  of 


I 


DR.  GREENWALD  S    ESSAY.  247 

the  Son  of  man,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  Here  "  spirit,"  "  regen- 
eration," "life,"  are  asserted  to  be  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
through  these  means  of  grace  instituted  for  the  purpose,  and  by 
which  His  operations  in,  and  upon,  the  nature  of  man  are  "wrought. 

5.  This  Spiritual  Nature  is  a  Divine  Nature. 
Not  that  there  is  in  regenerated  man  such  a  union  of  the  two 
natures,  as  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ, 
constituting  one  person.  "Nor,"  says  Quenstedt,  "does  this  union 
consist  in  transubstantiation,  or  the  conversion  of  our  substance 
into  the  substance  of  God  and  of  Christ,  or  vice  versa,  as  the  rod 
of  Moses  was  converted  into  a  serpent.  Nor  in  consubstantiation, 
so  that  of  two  united  essences  there  is  formed  one  substance." 
Says  Hollazius,  "  (a)  God  dwells  in  us  as  in  temples,  by  the  favor 
of  the  mystical  union,  i  Cor.  iii.  16;  but  the  habitation  is  not 
changed  into  the  inhabitant,  nor  the  inhabitant  into  the  habitation. 
{F)  By  the  mystical  union  we  put  on  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  27;  but  the 
garment  is  not  essentially  one  with  the  person  who  wears  it.  {c) 
The  divine  nature  is  very  distinct  from  the  human,  although  God 
comes  to  us  and  makes  His  abode  with  us,  John  xiv.  23,  for  He  can 
depart  from  man  to  whom  He  has  come."  Whilst  all  these  errors 
are  carefully  avoided,  yet  this  union  consists,  says  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  "in  a  true,  real,  intrinsic,  and  most  close  conjunction  of 
the  substance  of  the  believer  with  the  substance  of  the  Holy  Trin- 
ity, and  the  flesh  of  Christ."  "Two  things,  therefore,  pertain  to 
the  form  of  the  mystical  union,"  says  Calovius.  "^.i)  A  true  and 
real  adiastasia ;  a  nearness,  through  the  approximation  of  the  divine 
essence  to  the  believer,  whereby  the  triune  God  comes  to  us  and 
makes  His  abode  with  us,  which  is  not  then  merely  a  naked  operation 
without  the  approach  of  God,  but  a  nearer  access  to  us,  or  an  advent, 
that  He  may  be  and  remain  in  us,  John  xiv.  23.  (2)  A  gracious 
energy  or  operation,  whereby  God  comes  to  us  and  dwells  in  us, 
that  He  fills  us  with  all  the  fullness  of  His  spiritual  wisdom,  holiness, 
power  (Eph.  iii.  19),  and  other  divine  gifts  (Ch.  iv.  7);  which 
denotes  also  the  mystical  perichoresis,  whereby  God  is  in  us,  and 
remains  through  grace ;  but  we  are  in  God,  and  adhere  to  Him  in 
trust,  so  that  nothing  can  separate  us  from  God,  who  are  united  to 
Him  through  trust,  Rom.  viii.  t,^,  se(j."  It  is  really  and  truly,  God 
dwelling  in  us,  and  we  in  God. 


248  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

6.   //  IS  a  Genuine  Spiritual  Nature,  as  opposed  to  all  False 

Spiritualism. 
There  is  a  spiritualism  that  is  not  genuine  spirituahty.  "Ye  that 
are  spiritual,"  in  the  mouth  of  a  holy  apostle,  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  that  which  is  meant  by  many  men  who  use  the  same 
words.  There  is  a  spiritualism  that  cLims  to  Le  the  highest  spirit- 
uality, and  that  denies  spirituality  to  anything  else  than  itself,  that 
is,  in  almost  every  respect,  a  very  different  thing  from  true  spirit- 
uality. ^'  Sie  haben  einen  anderen  Geist,'^  said  Luther,  concerning 
a  class  of  men  in  his  time,  who  professed  to  be  far  more  spiritual 
than  himself,  who  even  condemned  his  want  of  spirituality,  and 
who  pretended  to  divine  inspiration,  to  visions,  and  to  extraor- 
dinary fervor  of  devotion.  This  spiritualism  is  self-righteous, 
proud,  censorious,  extravagant,  unsacramental,  unchurchly,  often 
sensual  and  lax  in  moral  strictness,  and  often  ends  in  an  utter  ship- 
wreck of  faith,  and  in  the  entire  abandonment  of  the  Church,  and 
its  holy  Sacraments.  This  is  necessarily  a  false  and  perverted  spir- 
itualism. It  is  an  unhappy  and  deplorable  development  of  the  re- 
ligious emotions.  The  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country  has  suf- 
fered from  it  in  many  places.  The  injurious  effects  of  it  have  not 
yet  wholly  passed  away.  It  needs  to  be  strenuously  guarded  against 
and  avoided,  as  a  most  insidious  enemy  to  true  and  sound  godliness. 

7.  True  Spirituality  is  in  Entire  Harmony  with  the  Evangelical 
System  of  Doctrine,  Duly,  and  Church  Order. 

It  is  interesting  and  instructive  to  trace  the  contrast  between  true 
and  false  spirituality,  in  their  relation  to  all  that  is  true  and  sound 
in  the  doctrines  of  our  holy  Christianity.  Such  a  tracing  of  the 
marks  of  contrast  between  the  two,  will  enable  us  to  have  a  just 
conception  of  both,  and  to  distinguish  between  the  one  that  is 
sound  and  the  other  that  is  unsound.  Let  me  invite  attention  to 
such  an  examination. 

(a. )   The  relation  of  spirituality  to  our  justification  before  God. 

Our  justification  is  our  judicial  acquittal  before  God's  judgment, 
of  the  charge  of  sin,  and  our  release  from  condemnation,  and  the 
forgiveness  of  our  sins  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  vicarious  right- 
eousness, appropriated  by  faith.  The  true  and  sound  spiritural 
affections  which  this  doctrine  develops  in  the  heart  of  a  true 
believer,  are  1  umble  trust  in  Christ,  love  to  God  for  this  unspeaka- 


DR.  GREENWALD's    ESSAY,  249 

ble  blessing,  hearty  gratitude,  self  renunciation,  deep  humiliation  of 
soul,  sincere  sorrow  for  sin  and  hatred  to  it,  and  in  general,  a  sense 
of  utter  unworthiness,  and  the  disposition  to  place  itself  very  low 
down  at  the  foot  of  the  cross.  This  abasement  of  soul,  this  renun- 
ciation of  all  merit  or  claim  of  any  kind,  this  humble  looking  to 
Jesus  alone  for  salvation  and  eternal  life,  draws  the  affections  very 
near  to  a  crucified  Saviour,  and  brings  them  into  very  sweet  com- 
munion with  His  spirit.  There  is  also  produced  in  the  soul,  an 
intense  feeling  of  the  odiousness  of  sin,  and  of  hatred  to  it,  on 
account  of  the  great  sufferings  endured  by  the  Saviour  in  order  to 
redeem  us  from  it.  It  therefore  leads  to  true  holiness  of  heart  and 
life,  moved  thereto  by  the  purest  and  best  of  all  motives,  the  love 
of  Jesus.  The  soul  thus  brought  to  the  foot  of  the  cross,  stays 
there,  and  has  no  desire  to  getaway  from  it.  It  does  not  "get 
through"  any  process  of  religious  experience,  by  which  it  can  now 
at  length  dispense  with  the  blood  of  Jesus  shed  on  the  cross,  con- 
stantly applied,  for  the  remission  of  its  sins.  Its  progress  in  holi- 
ness is  rather  the  constant  deepening  of  the  consciousness  that  it 
daily  needs  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  cleanse  it  from  all  sin. 
This  feeling  of  humble,  trustful,  daily  and  hourly  leaning  upon 
Christ  crucified,  for  mercy  and  grace,  and  for  the  hope  of  salvation 
and  eternal  life,  is  inexpressibly  tender,  precious  and  comforting  to 
the  soul.  This  is  true,  sound  evangelical  spirituality,  in  full  har- 
mony with  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul,  and  is  ardently  cherished  by 
every  heart  that  is  really  spiritual  after  apostolic  example. 

In  two  essential  points  particularly,  a  false  spiritualism  differs 
from  a  true  and  sound  spirituality,  in  its  relation  to  the  doctrine  of 
Justification  by  Faith.  The  one  is  the  claiming  for  itself  a  personal 
sinlessness  that  diminishes  its  estimate  of  the  absolute  and  indispen- 
sable necessity  of  the  vicarious  merits  of  Jesus  for  its  acceptance 
with  God ;  and  the  other  is  the  feeling  that,  however  much  it  needed 
the  atonement  of  Christ's  blood  for  the  forgiveness  of  the  sins  com- 
mitted before  its  conversion,  it  can  now,  since  its  conversion,, 
dispense  largely,  if  not  wholly,  with  the  application  of  that  blood,, 
and  can  live  so  free  from  sin  as  not  to  need  its  daily  and  hourly 
virtue,  to  keep  the  soul  clean  from  its  defilement.  It  is  remarkable 
how  changed  is,  at  once,  the  language  of  an  individual  who,  from  a 
true  and  sound  position  on  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  is  brought 
under  the  influence  of  an  erroneous  spiritualism.  Instead  of 
17 


250  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Christ's  redemption,  His  blood  shed,  His  mercy  offered,  His  obedi- 
ence rendered,  His  righteousness  imputed.  His  forgiveness  ex- 
tended, being  the  themes  dearest  to  the  heart  and  readiest  in  the 
discourse,  the  entire  subject  of  thought  and  speech  is,  what  the  indi- 
vidual has  felt,  what  raptures  he  has  experienced,  what  readiness  in 
prayer  he  enjoys,  what  freedom  from  sin  he  has  attained,  how  ear- 
nestly he  serves  God,  and  the  like  feelings  and  expressions,  all 
centering  upon  self,  and  glorifying,  not  the  Saviour,  but  the  man. 
From  being  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  content  to  stay  there  and  look 
with  an  humble  and  self- renouncing  faith  up  to  Christ  on  the  cross, 
as  all  his  righteousness,  he  seems  to  have  climbed  up  until  he  has  got 
above  the  cross  and  can  disi^ense  with  the  blood  shed,  the  righteous- 
ness acquired,  and  the  sacrifice  offered  on  it  by  the  Saviour.  Such 
a  spiritualism  as  this  is  self-righteous,  vain,  unevangelical,  false,  and 
exceedingly  dangerous  to  the  soul  that  cherishes  it. 

(^)  The  relation  of  spirituality  to  the  sacraments  of  the 
Church. 

The  Sacraments  are  essential  to  both  individual  and  Church 
Christian  life.  They  meet  the  soul  at  the  beginning  of  its  spiritual 
life,  and  they  attend  it  to  the  close,  when  God  calls  it  to  His 
everlasting  kingdom.  By  a  holy  Sacrament  the  gracious  germ-life 
is  implanted,  and  by  a  holy  Sacrament  that  growing  life  is  nour- 
ished, and  strengthened,  and  developed,  and  matured  until  it  be- 
comes ripe  for  heaven.  True  spirituality  greatly  values  the  Sacra- 
ments. It  prepares  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Communion,  and 
the  Holy  Communion  increases  and  strengthens  it.  Through  the 
Lord's  Supper  the  soul  enjoys  its  nearest  and  sweetest  communion 
with  God.  Its  enjoyment  is  tender,  subdued,  self- renouncing,  de- 
vout, holy.  It  is  then  nearer  to  Jesus  than  it  can  be  at  any  other 
place  or  on  any  other  occasion.  It  relishes  this  communion  of  spirit 
with  Christ's  spirit,  this  feeling  of  nearness  to  its  Lord,  this  partic- 
ipation of  Christ's  most  precious  grace  and  blessing  at  the  Lord's 
table,  beyond  the  power  of  words  to  express  it.  It  is  never  more 
truly  spiritual,  devout,  and  heavenly  minded,  than  at  the  Commun- 
ion Table.  And  this  spiritual  feeling  is  in  its  nature  the  purest, 
most  god-like  and  heavenly,  that  can  be  conceived,  because  it 
flows  out  directly  from  the  divine  life  in  the  soul,  is  in  completest 
harmony  with  it,  and  is  constituted  by  it  what  it  is. 

A  false  spirituality,  on  the  contrary,  depreciates  the  Sacraments, 


DR    GREENWALDS    ESSAV.  25  I 

undervalues  their  iKicessity,  takes  from  them  their  heavenly  element, 
degrades  them  to  the  condition  of  mere  rites  and  ceremonies,  finds 
in  them  a  chill,  rather  than  an  incitement  to  devotion,  and  in  many 
instances,  either  defers  them,  or  dispenses  with  them  altogether.  By 
such  an  erroneous  spiritualism,  they  are  put  very  far  into  the  back- 
ground. Other  methods  and  instrumentalities,  devised  by  human 
minds,  seem  much  better  adapted  than  they  are  to  awaken  devo- 
tion, to  excite  feeling,  to  kindle  fervor,  and  to  promote  spiritual 
religion.  They  are  regarded  as  mere  outward  forms  that  lead  to 
formality,  empty  ceremonies  that  convey  no  grace,  dampeners  to 
rapturous  emotion,  and  that  produce  in  those  who  are  not  very 
much  on  their  guard,  a  dead,  godless,  sacramental  religion.  Ac- 
corciing  to  this  view  of  the  relation  of  the  Sacraments  to  spirituality, 
God's  institutions  have  been  found  wanting,  and  man's  inventions 
are  much  better  adapted  than  they  are,  to  promote  vital  godliness. 

fr)    The  relation  of  spirituality  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity. 

Sound  doctrine  is  essential  to  sound  Christianity.  True  practice 
must  necessarily  be  founded  upon  true  principles.  The  spirit  of  the 
mind  is  influenced  and  constituted  by  the  governing  principles  en- 
tertained by  the  mind.  Sound  thinking,  so  far  from  being  a  hin- 
drance to  true  devotion,  aids  and  promotes  it.  An  enlightened  and 
safe  judgment  is  essentially  valuable  as  a  regulator  of  the  feelings, 
which  are  usually  variable  and  impatient  of  control.  There  is  no 
necessary  antagonism  between  right  thinking,  right  feeling,  and 
right  doing.  Indeed,  it  is  only  when  all  these  are  well  proportioned, 
and  well  balanced  in  any  man,  that  he  is  the  best  specimen  of  what 
a  man  should  be.  A  sound  orthodox  Christian  is,  and  necessarily 
must  be,  a  sound  spiritual  Christian.  His  orthodoxy  helps  his 
spirituality.  His  piety  is  sound  because  his  faith  is  sound.  His 
devout  feelings  are  right,  because  his  correct  knowledge  and  enlight- 
ened judgment  regulate  them  properly,  and  control  them  aright. 
He  lays  a  sanctified  intellect  upon  God's  altar.  His  head,  and 
heart,  and  life,  present  a  well-proportioned  and  divinely  symmetri- 
cal Christian.  His  devotions  spring  from  his  faith.  Having  the 
true  Christian  faith,  he  breathes  the  spirit  of  true  Christian  devotion. 
There  is  no  conflict  between  his  fliith  and  his  devotions,  but  as  the 
one  is  pure,  so  the  others  are  sound. 

An  erroneous  spiritualism,  on  the  contrary,  has  relaxed  and  easy 
notions  about  the  faith.      One  of  its  ready  maxims  declares,  "It 


^J). 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


matters  not  what  a  man's  opinions  are,  so  only  his  heart  is  converted, 
and  his  practice  is  right."  It  forgets  that  practice  is  governed  by 
principles,  and  that  as  is  the  faith,  such  also  are  the  devotions  that 
spring  from  it.  It  is  the  faith  of  the  Hindoo  that  produces  the 
superstitious  devotions  of  the  Hindoo;  it  is  Mohammedan  faith 
that  constitutes  the  peculiar  religious  spirit  of  the  Moslem  worship- 
er; and  it  is  from  the  true  faith  of  Christ  that  the  intelligent,  pure, 
and  Christ-like  spirit  of  the  Christian's  devotions  springs.  The 
spiritualism  that  undervalues  sound  doctrine,  that  confounds  the 
true  and  the  false,  that  exalts  feeling  above  knowledge,  that  places 
practice  in  antagonism  to  principle,  that  sacrifices  the  faith  in  the 
interest  of  spirituality,  and  that  considers  it  necessary  to  overthrow 
the  pure  faith  of  the  Church  in  order  to  advance  the  cause  of  vital 
godliness  in  the  Church,  is  a  spiritualism  that  is  erroneous,  unsafe, 
and  that  needs  to  be  carefully  guarded  against.  However  specious 
may  be  its  pretensions,  it  is  not  the  true  spirituality  of  Christ  and 
His  apostles,  or  which  will  promote,  in  the  end,  the  best  and  most 
enduring  interests  of  Christianity,  and  the  Christian  Church.  Let 
a  man  be  alike  sound  in  doctrine,  devout  in  spirit,  and  holy  in  life, 
and  we  have  in  him  the  highest  and  best  style  of  a  Christian,  after 
the  pattern  of  Christ,  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  and  of  the  best  and 
holiest  men  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian  Church. 

(^/)  The  relation  of  spirituality  to  the  order  and  service  of  the 
Church.  I 

The  Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  Christians  are  mem- 
bers of  His  Body.  As  the  life  of  the  body  is  the  life  of  the 
members,  and  the  members  live  because  the  body  lives,  so  the  life 
that  lives  and  moves  and  acts  in  the  hearts  of  Christians,  is  the  life 
of  the  Son  of  God  Himself.  Our  union  with  Christ,  the  Head,  is 
through  His  Body,  the  Church.  True  evangelical  spirituality  is 
churchly — necessarily  churchly.  It  is  through  the  Church  that  we 
come  to  Christ,  in  the  Church  that  we  find  Christ,  and  by  means  of 
the  Church  that  we  have  the  faith,  and  spirit,  and  life  of  Christ. 
In  the  Church  we  have  the  word  of  Christ,  the  ministry  of  Christ, 
the  Sacraments  of  Christ,  the  worship  of  Christ,  the  service  and 
obedience  of  Christ.  All  the  means  for  the  origination,  the  pro- 
gress, and  the  perfection  of  spiritual  life  in  the  souls  of  men,  are 
found  in  the  Church.  These  means  of  grace  produce  the  true 
spirit  of  devotion  in  the  heart.     They  draw  the  soul  into  close  and 


DR.  GREENWALD  S    ESSAY,  253 

intimate  communion  and  fellowship  with  God.  The  Christian 
comes  very  near  to  God  in  the  reading  and  hearing  of  His  ^Vord, 
in  the  confession  of  sin,  in  the  profession  of  faith,  in  the  prayers 
offered,  in  the  hymns  sung.  The  spirit  of  devotion  which  is 
thereby  produced  is  intelligent,  reverent,  solemn,  pure.  It  is  ten- 
der, delightful,  holy.  God  is  felt  to  be  in  the  place,  and  the  pres- 
ence of  God  is  inexpressibly  dear  to  the  soul.  The  forms  of  the 
Church  service  express  the  sentiments  and  feelings  of  the  worshiper, 
and  his  holiest  and  happiest  thoughts  go  along  with  them  from 
the  first  silent  prayer  on  entering,  to  the  last  silent  prayer  before 
leaving,  the  sanctuary.  They  are  not  barren,  lifeless  forms.  They 
are  used  devoutly,  and  they  foster  in  the  breast  the  purest  spirit  01 
devotion. 

A  false  spirituality  overleaps  the  settled  order  and  forms  of 
Christianity,  and  is  a  wild  and  erratic  law  unto  itself.  It  is  the 
creature  of  impulse.  Its  action  is  spasmodic.  It  is  wholly  emo- 
tional. It  feels  so,  and  therefore  it  is  right.  It  will  not  be 
restrained  by  forms,  nor  hampered  by  ceremony,  nor  controlled  by 
rules  of  order.  Like  the  untamed,  steed  of  the  plains,  it  \vill  rear, 
and  plunge,  and  rush  forward  at  its  own  sweet  will.  Said  one  of 
this  class  to  me  recently,  "I  have  got  above  all  churches."  It 
chose  its  own  way,  and  no  longer  needed  God's  way,  or  institutions, 
or  sacraments,  or  Church,  or  help  It  had  got  above  all  these.  It 
is  not  only  restless  under  the  restraints  of  the  forms  of  a  sound 
churchliness,  but  despises  and  denounces  them  as  dead  formalism, 
high  churchism,  a  cold  sacramental  religion.  Even  when  yielding 
to  their  observance,  it  has  no  reverence  for  them.  Indeed,  the 
spirit  of  irreverence  in  the  Church,  in  the  pew,  in  the  pulpit,  at 
prayer,  at  the  Communion  table,  and  at  every  part  of  divine  service, 
is  one  of  the  most  marked  peculiarities  of  an  erroneous  spirituality. 
This  spirit  of  irreverence  in  the  most  sacred  places,  and  during  the 
most  solemn  services,  is  shocking  to  a  truly  devout  and  spiritually 
minded  Christian,  and  it  is  a  sure  evidence  that  the  spirit  that  leads 
to  it  is  unsound  and  false. 

(<?)     The  relation  of  spirituality  to  the  duty  of  prayer. 

A  spiritual  mind  is  a  devout  mind.  The  spirit  of  devotion  is 
essential  to  spirituality.  A  pious  mind  is  a  mind  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  prayer.  It  delights  in  communion  with  God.  The  con- 
sciousness of  God's  presence  with  it,  is  very  pleasing  to  a  godly 


254  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

heart.  It  cherishes  the  thought  that  God  is  near  it;  it  draws  nigh 
in  spirit  to  God's  Spirit;  it  loves  to  feel  that  it  is  alone  with  God,  in 
the  closet  and  in  other  places  of  solitude ;  and  the  fellowship  of  soul 
with  God,  in  all  the  public  and  private  exercises  of  devotion,  is 
very  dear  and  precious.  This  spirit  of  devotion  is  subdued,  tender, 
shrinking  from  observation,  humble,  self-abased,  calm,  pure.  The 
best  ideal  I  have  before  my  mind  is  that  of  a  sainted  mother,  as  I 
often  saw  her  in  my  childhood,  sitting  in  her  chamber,  with  her 
German  Bible,  or  Arndt's  Paradies-Gaertlein,  or  Stark's  Handbuch 
before  her.  All  was  quiet  around  her;  her  own  person  was  mo- 
tionless, with  her  head  resting  on  her  hand,  her  face  beamed  forth 
seriousness,  gentleness  and  peace;  her  eyes  were  fixed  upon  the 
page,  and  often  the  tear-drop  swelled  under  the  eyelid,  coursed 
down  her  cheek,  and  fell  on  and  wetted  the  page  she  was  perusing. 
It  was  calm,  subdued,  tender,  lowly,  sincere,  genuine,  spiritual 
communion  with  God.  It  was  spirituahty  of  the  old  sort,  without 
pretense,  sound  and  holy,  such  as  would  necessarily  proceed  from 
the  life  of  God  in  the  soul.  It  was  itself  pure  and  holy,  and  it 
made  its  subject  purer  and  holier. 

In  contradistinction  to  this,  a  false  spirituality  is  bold,  obtrusive, 
noisy,  demonstrative,  sensational,  self-righteous,  and  relaxed  in 
moral  strictness.  It  seeks  to  work  itself  up  to  a  high  pitch  of  ex- 
travagant emotion,  by  the  labored  heaving  of  the  breast,  the  affected 
tones  of  the  voice,  the  violent  rubbing  together  of  the  hands,  and 
other  bodily  demonstrations,  forced  and  unnatural.  As  of  old,  so 
now,  it  delights  to  display  itself  before  the  crowd,  at  the  corners  of 
the  streets,  and  to  gain  the  applause  of  men.  It  is  proud  of  itself, 
condemnatory  of  another  spirit  better  than  itself,  and  passes  easily 
from  the  most  extravagant  demonstrations  of  devoutness,  to  exces- 
sive lightness  both  of  language  and  demeanor.  Even  when  these 
objectionable  traits  exist  in  much  less  degree,  it  is  still  a  spirit  differ- 
ing essentially  from  the  genuine  and  holy  spirituality  which  lived  in 
the  heart  of  Jesus,  and  because  it  lived  there,  lives  also  in  the  heart 
of  all  His  faithful  followers. 

It  now  only  remains  for  me  to  say  that  the  Apostle's  words,  "Ye 
which  are  spiritual,"  should  be  descriptive  of  every  human  being. 
They  should  truly  describe  us  as  ministers  and  members  here  assem- 
bled. They  should  describe  the  entire  Church  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  of  which  we  are  members  and  ministers,  and  which  we 


DR.  GREENWALD  S    ESSAY.  255 

love.  The  Church  should  never  lack  a  sound  and  genuine  spiritu- 
ality. True  spirituality  should  never  be  wanting,  eitlier  by  its 
place  being  usurped  by  a  false  spiritualism,  or  by  the  heart  being 
sunk  into  a  sad  state  of  irreligiousness  and  want  of  fervent  devo- 
tion. Let  us  carefully  guard  against  the  error  of  letting  sound 
spirituality  decline  in  our  hearts,  because  others  exhibit  a  spiritual- 
ity that  is  unsound.  Let  the  Church  conscientiously  cultivate  the 
old  devout  spirit  of  the  venerable  fathers  of  the  Reformation  era. 
It  is  sometimes  objected  that  the  advocacy  of  the  old  faith  of  the 
Church,  and  of  the  old  and  wholesome  Church  service  and  Church 
order,  is  inconsistent  with  the  maintenance  of  a  high  tone  of  spir- 
ituality in  the  Church.  We  believe  the  allegation  to  be  false.  We 
believe  that  a  sound  Lutheran  faith,  a  wholesome  Church  order, 
and  a  high-toned  spirituality,  are  not  antagonistic,  but  exist  neces- 
sarily together.  Let  all  unite  to  prove,  in  our  preaching,  in  our 
personal  experience,  and  in  the  spirit  prevalent  in  our  congrega- 
tions, that  the  true  faith  as  held  by  the  Church,  is  a  living  faith, 
that  a  wholesome  Church  service  is  the  helper  and  not  the  enemy 
of  fervent  piety,  and  that  the  Word  of  God,  as  believed  and 
preached  by  the  fathers,  has  now,  as  then,  the  power  to  produce 
and  maintain  the  sound  godliness  of  the  fathers.  It  is  desirable 
that  this  spirit  should  pervade  every  part  of  the  Church.  It  should 
be  breathed  in  the  pastor's  sermons,  in  his  catechetical  lectures,  in 
his  private  admonitions  to  the  young  and  the  old.  It  should  be 
cherished  in  the  hearts  of  ministers,  in  the  breasts  of  our  members, 
in  the  homes  of  our  children,  in  the  Sunday-school  classes,  in  the 
chambers  of  the  sick  and  dying.  It  should  be  impressed  upon  the 
hearts  of  all  our  theological  students  as  they  sit  in  the  recitation 
rooms  of  our  seminaries,  and  it  ought  to  be  earnestly  cultivated  by 
them  not  only  in  the  morning  and  evening  prayers  in  the  chapel, 
but  also  in  their  study  rooms,  and  in  their  retired  chambers.  The 
want  of  a  sound  spirit  of  devotion  is  a  sad  preparation  for  the  active 
duties  of  the  ministry.  Let  the  spirit  of  devotion  be  cultivated  by 
parents  and  children  in  all  our  families,  by  the  regular  morning  and 
evening  prayers,  by  the  offering  of  grace  at  meat,  by  retired  closet 
devotions,  and  in  all  suitable  times  and  ways,  in  the  sanctuary  and 
out  of  it.  Let  us  read  God's  Word  devoutly,  believe  devoutly, 
pray  devoutly,  sing  devoutly,  preach  devoutly,  commune  devoutly, 
live  devoutly,  animated  and  moved  thereto  by  the  life  of  God  that 


256 


FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 


dwells  in  us.  We  shall  then  be  spiritual  Christians  after  the  pattern 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  of  Luther  and  the  Reformers,  of  the 
fathers  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country,  and  of  all,  in 
every  age,  who  truly  believe  in  and  love  the  name  of  our  dear  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  regular  order  having  been  suspended,  it  was  resolved  to  hear 
the  essay  of  Dr.  Stork  next. 


LITURGICAL  FORMS  IN  WORSHIP. 

BY   REV.    C.    A.    STORK,    D.    D.,    BALTIMORE,    MD. 

THE  question  of  Liturgies  is  not  a  great  question  in.  Christi- 
anity, but  it  is  one  that  can  be  solved  only  by  an  appeal  to 
great  Christian  principle.  The  little  finger  is  not  a  very  important 
member,  but  its  existence  and  function  are  determined  by  very  im- 
portant structural  facts  in  the  body. 

How  shall  lue  ivorship  God  in  p7iblic  ?  Shall  we  trust  for  order 
and  matter  to  the  inspiration  of  the  hour  ?  Shall  we  prepare  the 
order,  and  leave  only  the  mode  to  the  suggestion  of  the  moment  ?  Or, 
shall  there  be  an  established  order,  and  a  definite  form  of  expression 
to  be  habitually  observed? 

It  is  unfortunate,  that  these  questions  have  been  discussed  for  sev- 
eral centuries,  now,  in  an  atmosphere  clouded  by  strong  partisan 
feeling;  and  that  they  have  been  determined,  for  the  most  part,  by 
an  appeal  either  to  mere  tradition  or  to  individual  taste.  As  for  the 
disturbance  of  judgment,  that  arises  from  the  vehemence  with  which 
the  subject  has  been  discussed,  tliat  we  can  in  no  wise  escape,  unless 
we  are  prepared  to  give  up  discussing  all  matters  in  which  we  have 
a  present,  practical  interest.  All  questions  become  personal  questions 
when  they  enter  the  arena  of  life:  the  lumen  siccum,  that  dry  light 
of  reason,  that  impersonal  atmosphere,  in  which  Bacon  thought  it 
so  desirable  that  all  unsettled  questions  should  be  viewed,  is  possible 
only  to  those  subjects  in  which  human  beings  have  no  interest. 
Human  feeling  will  mix  with  all  earnest  human  thinking.  We 
must,  therefore,  accept  the  disabilities  of  our  diverse  ways  of  look- 
ing at  things,  and  allow  for  the  refraction  caused  by  this  heated 
atmosphere  of  strife  as  best  we  can. 

I  do  not  think  we  can  settle  the  question  of  Liturgies  by  a  simple 
appeal  to  tradition.  We  may  have  the  profoundest  and  tenderest 
reverence  for  antiquity,  and  yet  find  no  reasonable  vindication  of  a 
practice  or  belief  in  saying  "  Our  fathers  did  so."  We  are  contin^ 
ually  re\nsing  the  doings  and  beliefs  of  our  fathers,  summoning  them 
to  the  bar  of  great  principles ;  and  irreverence  towards  the  past  lies 

(257) 


258  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

not  in  revising  its  work,  but  in  ignoring  it,  in  refusing  to  consider 
it  at  all.  So  when  it  is  said  "  Liturgic  forms  are  the  most  adequate 
expression  of  public  worship,  because  the  Church  has  always  used 
them,"  we  are  only  summoned  to  review  history  and  to  ask,  Has  the 
Church  always  used  them,  and  if  so,  why  ?  The  Past  lands  an  im- 
mense cargo  at  our  feet ;  some  of  it  is  gold,  some  silver,  much 
rubbish.  And  in  all  open  questions  like  this  of  the  use  of  Liturgi- 
cal forms,  the  business  of  a  reasonable  man  is  to  inquire,  what  does 
antiquity  in  this  case  mean  ?  That  the  Church  has  almost  exclu- 
sively poured  her  devotions  through  them  is  a  very  serious  call  to 
the  consideration  of  the  meaning  of  such  catholic  consent.  But 
that  use  has  not  been  exclusive.  If  it  were  true  that  she  had  always 
done  so,  if  it  were  not  an  almost  but  an  altogether,  if  there  were  no 
break  in  the  tradition,  then  we  would  not  be  discussing  the  matter 
to-day.  An  unbroken  tradition  calls  for  no  discussion  ;  the  com- 
mon consent  is  the  voucher  of  the  very  truth.  But  here  the  Church 
divides ;  she  has  divided  for  two  centuries  or  more.  And  unless 
we  are  of  those  who  think  the  voice  of\he  Church  of  importance 
only  before  the  i8th  century,  and  of  none  since,  we  must  take  this 
divided  testimony  into  account. 

As  for  the  other,  the  purely  modern,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  the 
American  method  of  determining  the  question  by  an  appeal  to  in- 
dividual taste,  this,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  most  futile,  the  most  puerile 
of  all.  This  subjects  the  solemn  business  of  approaching  God  in 
the  worship  of  the  great  congregation  to  a  private  fancy,  to  an 
irresponsible  individual  whim. 

For  a  man  to  say  "I  will  worship  God  with,  or  without,  estab- 
lished forms,  because  I  feel  like  it,"  is  to  say,  "I  will  because  I 
will,"  which  has  always  been  accounted  a  good  feminine  reason  for 
conduct,  but  not  one  that  commends  itself  to  the  rational,  the  mas- 
culine intellect.  Acts  of  religion  or  worship  that  have  no  better 
reason  for  their  performance  than  individual  taste,  are  open  to  the 
objection  that  they  are  not  worthy  a  rational  creature  to  pay  to  a 
wise  and  holy  God.  If  the  only  reason  we  can  give  for  having 
prayers  without  a  book  is  that  we  don't  like  a  book,  I  am  afraid,  as 
those  who  have  come  to  years  of  discretion,  we  shall  have  to  give  up 
our  free  forms.  The  reasoning  of  a  great  many  good  men  against 
Liturgical  forms  in  public  worship,  and  of  as  many  good  men  for 
Liturgical  forms,  viz.,  that  they  do,  or  do  not,  like  them,  has 
always  seemed  to  me  really  childish. 


DR.  STORK  S    ESSAY.  259 

But  let  US  leave  these  reminiscences  of  battle,  and  approach  the 
subject  from  what  we  may  call  the  inside. 

Public  Worship :  what  are  the  elements  of  it  ?  the  formal 
elements,  I  mean.  The  matter,  the  substance  of  worship,  is  very 
simple  :  adoration,  praise,  confession,  petition,  these  are  its  material 
elements ;  but  the  formal  part,  the  mode  of  paying  these,  what  is 
it?  In  private  worship  the  formal  element  is  very  simple,  too; 
whatever  makes  a  bridge  between  the  soul  and  its  Creator  (over 
which  communication  can  pass),  whatever  opens  a  channel  between 
the  solitary  soul  and  the  Infinite  Spirit,  by  which  the  two  may 
mingle  and  commune, — this  is  all;  and  each  man  must  determine 
that  for  himself.  But  add  the  word  public,  and  immediately  it 
becomes  something  quite  different.  It  is  changed  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  two  additional  elements  embraced  in  the  word  public.  It  is 
as sociated \\ox^-\\\i ;  the  act  of  a  united  body.  The  race,  as  it  were, 
appears  before  its  Maker  to  confess  and  adore.  It  is  no  longer  in- 
dividual but  corporate  in  its  character,  and  hence  invested  with  a 
solemnity,  an  august  quality,  such  as  cannot  belong  to  the  devotion 
of  a  solitary  soul.  With  this  goes  also  the  indefinable  sense  of 
community,  fellowship,  the  thrill  of  multitude,  the  harmony  of  souls 
uniting  in  the  same  act.  Every  one,  I  suppose,  knows  the  difference 
between  melody  and  harmony  :  there  is  in  a  harmonized  chord,  a 
something  that  never  can  be  got  out  of  a  mere  succession  of  notes, 
a  melody.  And  so  in  the  worship  of  the  congregation,  the  rich, 
the  poor,  the  high,  the  low,  the  little  child,  the  old  man,  the  sage, 
the  peasant,  there  is  a  quahty  that  is  not  the  mere  intensification  of 
the  individual's  devotion  ;  it  is  a  new  quality ;  it  is  "  the  Communion 
of  Saint s.^^ 

If  we  keep  these  two  elements  in  mind  we  shall  see,  I  think,  what 
change  passes  upon  private  worship  in  being  xw^At.  public. 

The  solemn  official  quality  of  the  Church  approaching  her  Sover- 
eign, her  Redeemer,  her  Head,  must  be  there. 

And  the  sense  of  fellowship,  of  communion,  the  feeling  not  only 
of  the  Great  Head  above  bending  down  and  receiving,  but  the 
touch  of  brother  against  brother,  the  almost  actual  sense  of  fellow- 
ship, the  devout  thrill  making  all  one,  that  too  is  there. 

Now  it  is  these  two  elements,  both  present,  both  distinct,  and 
yet  blending  into  one  in  every  act  of  public  worship,  it  seems  to 
me,  that  have  determined  the  constant  tendency  in  all  religions  to 


26o  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  use  of  Liturgical  Forms.  I  take  this  stream  of  tendency  for 
granted.  It  is  found  in  all  non-revealed  religions.  It  is  conspicuous 
in  Judaism  to  the  present  day.  In  the  early  Christian  Church  it  is 
too  obvious  to  call  for  more  than  a  mere  passing  notice.  In  the 
Mediaeval  Church  it  was  exclusive.  Even  in  the  Protestant  Churches 
it  has  predominated.  And  now  in  those  very  Churches,  the  non- 
liturgical,  in  which  for  generations  it  was  resisted  and  apparently 
overcome,  it  is  making  itself  increasingly  felt.  It  is  simply  a  natural 
current  channeled  in  the  very  constitution  of  man's  religious 
nature,  and  nothing  can  ever  permanently  mtercept  it,  or  make  it 
other  than  it  is.  Of  the  meaning  of  the  tendency  to  abandon  old 
established  forms  which  was  developed  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion I  shall  speak  presently.  I  believe  it  to  have  had  a  ground  of 
reality:  the  repugnance  to  Liturgical  Forms  meant  something.  It 
is  more  than  a  revolt  against  forms  too  closely  associated  with  cor- 
rupt doctrines.  But  of  that  farther  on.  But  one  thing  is  certain, 
that  the  dominant  tendency  in  the  Church  Catholic  in  all  ages  has 
been  to  the  use  of  Liturgical  Forms.  And  that  tendency,  I  repeat, 
is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  two  elements  involved  in  the  very  idea 
of  worship  that  is  public.     We  will  examine  them  separately. 

I.  Public  Service  is,  in  a  very  real  sense,  the  worship  of  the  race. 
It  is,  so  to  speak,  an  official  act.  It  is  humanity  appearing  before 
God.  No  man  I  think  can  help  feeling  that,  when  he  joins  an  assem- 
bly of  earnest  men  engaged  in  worship.  When  they  stand  up  or 
kneel  down  to  pray,  when  together  they  confess  or  praise,  there  is 
a  quality  of  solemnity,  as  of  the  transaction  of  some  august  cere- 
mony. The  most  violent  defender  of  free  prayer  cannot  escape 
the  impression.  Men  may  seek  to  root  out  the  idea  of  ceremony 
as  they  will ;  they  may  abolish  vestments  and  postures ;  they  may 
pulverize  orders  of  service  and  scatter  the  dust  of  them  to  the 
winds ;  but  as  the  idea  of  ceremony  does  not  inhere  in  these,  but 
only  uses  them  as  instruments,  as  garments  in  which  to  clothe  itself, 
it  will  still  remain  in  the  assembly  as  a  spirit.  That  is,  it  will 
remain  as  long  as  it  is  a  truly  worshiping  assembly,  a  body  of  men 
consciously  paying  devotion  to  their  Creator.  A  great  many  relig- 
ious assemblies  are  not  worshiping  at  all ;  they  are  meetings  for 
teaching,  for  social  intercourse,  for  the  comparison  of  experience, 
for  the  enjoyment  of  religious  emotions ;  but  as  soon  as  they  wor- 
ship— when  the  prayer  and  praise,  the  adoration  and  confession 


i 


DR.  stork's    essay.  26 1 

begin — then  the  spirit  of  ceremony  must  be  present.  How  can  it 
be  otherwise?  There  is  the  throne  and  He  that  sits  thereon,  and 
here  are  the  creatures  bowed  and  paying  their  homage.  Involun- 
tarily the  expression  becomes  stately,  solemn,  ceremonious;  or  if 
it  does  not,  the  common  consciousness  of  the  worshiper  is  dis- 
turbed ;  they  revolt  from  the  easy,  familiar  tone;  they  say  "  that 
prayer  was  irreverent." 

The  natural  effect  of  such  a  feeling,  is  to  invest  the  api)roach  to 
God  with  safe-guards  that  shall  secure  it  from  what  is  comriion  and 
familiar.  The  leader  of  devotion  will  check  his  utterance.  He 
will  remember  the  words  of  the  \Vise  Man,  "  God  is  in  heaven, 
and  thou  upon  earth  :  therefore  let  thy  words  befe^uy  He  will  cut 
off  rhetoric,  and  eschew  hyperbole  and  extravagant  expression.  He 
becomes  simple.  Then,  finding  himself  falling  into  faults  of  utter- 
ance from  the  hurry  of  the  moment,  he  finds  it  necessary  to  choose 
his  words  before.  You  can  follow  out  the  process  for  yourself.  It 
ends  in  the  formation  of  a  Liturgical  Form.  If  a  Church  were  to 
set  out  for  itself  de  novo,  with  no  knowledge  and  no  prejudice  drawn 
from  the  past,  with  only  the  Scriptures  and  the  instincts  of  the  relig- 
ious nature  for  the  constructive  forces,  it  would  in  process  of  time 
have  a  liturgical  form  of  its  own  making.  It  would  make  an 
order,  it  would  fix  certain  phrases,  it  would  continually  tend  to  a 
more  absolutely  established  form  even  of  words.  It  would  do  this 
because  the  solemn  atmosphere  of  worship  would  call  for  just  such 
an  order.  The  instinct  for  Liturgical  Forms,  then,  is  rooted  in 
man's  religious  nature. 

2.  But  there  is  another  element  in  associated  worship.  Men  do 
not  worship  together  simply  to  make  a  public  recognition  of  God, 
as  an  official  act,  so  to  speak.  They  worship  together  to  satisfy  the 
desire  for  fellowship.  That  desire  is  laid  deep  in  human  nature ; 
and  the  revelation  of  a  new  fellowship  in  Christ  makes  it  still 
deeper.  "  We  are  all  baptized  into  one  body;''  and  that  is  "  the 
body  of  Christ.'"  And  as  members  of  that  body  we  "  are  members 
one  of  another.''  Now  of  this  new  fellowship  public  worship  is  per- 
haps the  most  vivid,  palpable  realization  we  can  have.  It  is  as  old 
as  the  little  company  in  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church ; 
it  is  as  new  as  the  last  Church  service  in  which  together  we  adored 
our  God.  We  know  the  power  of  that  common  stream  of  worship 
in  which  we  are  borne  as  on  a  mighty  current  into  regions  of  holy 


262  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

thoughts,  and  aspirations,  and  adorations,  that  we  never  reach 
alone. 

But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  use  of  Liturgical  Forms  ?  Would 
not  the  sense  of  fellowship  be  as  vivid  with  a  free  prayer,  a  mova- 
ble order  ? 

I  answer,  Yes,  and  No. 

Yes,  so  far  as  the  Communion  of  Saints  is  expressed  by  that  one 
assembly. 

No,  when  we  reflect  that  the  Communion  of  Saints  embraces  not 
only  the  Present,  but  also  the  Past : 

"  Part  of  the  host  have  crossed  the  flood, 
And  part  are  crossing  now." 

But  it  is  one  host,  and  the  fellowship  extends  backward  and  up- 
ward, as  well  as  to  those  on  the  earth  with  us  now.  This  Commun- 
ion with  the  Church  of  the  past,  is  not  so  palpable  a  fact  as  the 
fellowship  with  the  Church  of  the  present.  But  it  is  nevertheless  a 
fact ;  and  the  Church  cannot  with  impunity  ignore  it.  At  times 
the  Church  has  ignored  it ;  and  always  to  its  great  loss.  Thus  the 
non-liturgical  Churches,  in  turning  their  backs  on  the  past,  have 
broken  the  continuity  of  the  Church.  In  so  far  they  have  destroyed 
that  sense  of  solidarity  of  whicli  we  hear  so  much  in  secular  circles, 
but  which  is  reahzed  in  its  fullness  only  in  the  Christian  body. 
They  have  done  so  in  past  generations;  but  they  are  awaking  to 
recognize  their  loss.  They  will  be  non-historic  no  longer.  They 
are  knitting  again  the  broken  strands.  They  are  claiming  their 
place  in  the  continuity.  They  are  welcome.  It  was  our  loss  as 
well  as  theirs  that  the  solidarity  was  ever  broken.  But  this  return 
shows  us  something.  Christianity  is  not  a  force  that  dies  to-day  to 
rise  again  in  another  form  to-morrow.  It  is  not  an  isolated  flame 
burning  in  the  solitary  soul  or  congregation,  and  then  kindled  in 
another  solitary  soul,  or  isolated  congregation.  The  body  is  one, 
and  the  spirit  is  one.  It  leaps  over  barriers  of  Space  and  Time  ;  it 
diff"uses  itself  through  the  long  ranks  of  generations  and  centuries  ; 
it  fuses  even  diverse  theologies  and  forms ;  there  is  One  Lord,  One 
Faith,  One  Baptism. 

Now  we  may  regard  this  great  fact  simply  as  a  theological 
dogma,  and  speculate  upon  it,  define  it,  draw  it  out.  And  that  is 
well.  But  the  Church  has  done  more  than  that ;  it  has  taken  the 
fact  up  into  its  life.     It  has  striven  to  bring  it  into  more  and  more 


DK.  stork's    essay.  263 

vivid  and  continual  consciousness.  It  would  not  be  a  truth  of  doc- 
trine if  the  Christian  body  had  not  verified  it  by  making  it  a  truth 
of  life.  And  how  has  it  been  realized?  Very  largely  by  the  use  of 
Liturgical  Forms.  The  Communion  of  Saints  is  brought  to  con- 
sciousness in  one  very  intense  way  by  the  use  in  worship  of  the 
same  order  and  forms ;  nay,  the  very  words  and  cadences  used  by 
the  generations  of  the  saints  before  us.  There  is  a  power  in  words. 
They  are  "winged,"  in  Homer's  subtle  phrase,  with  the  swift  mo- 
tion and  thrill  of  life.  We  know  the  power  a  word  has  to  bring 
forth  a  vague  thought,  an  elusive  feeling  :  spoken,  it  is  fixed,  it 
comes  forth  out  of  the  empty,  the  impalpable,  into  the  concrete. 
We  know,  too,  the  power  of  old  words;  how  a  phrase,  a  cadence,  a 
web  of  thought  and  feeling  woven  up  in  familiar  expression,  brings 
with  it  a  power  more  than  its  own,  a  color,  a  fragrance,  a  warm 
breath,  in  which  the  dead  words  and  phrases  palpitate  with  a  glow 
of  life. 

Now  we  may  analyze  all  this  and  label  it  association.  But  put- 
ting a  name  on  a  great  process  of  the  human  spirit  does  not  dissolve 
its  mystery,  nor  abridge  its  power.  It  is  association ;  and  that  is 
just  the  secret  of  the  power  there  lies  in  the  use  of  an  old  Liturgy : 
the  prayer,  the  praise,  the  confession,  the  adoration,  are  instinct 
with  a  life  more  than  their  own,  the  life  of  past  generations,  the 
life  of  the  Church  once  breathed  through  them,  and  yet  warm  in 
them.  It  is  a  palpable,  almost  sensible  realization  of  the  mystic 
fellowship  that  runs  through  the  Church  universal.  A  prayer  that 
has  been  prayed  by  my  father,  and  before  himby  his  father,  and 
so  for  centuries  backward  gathers  on  its  petitions  the  yearning 
breath  of  generation  after  generation,  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
the  petition  just  made  for  me  and  uttered  for  the  first  time. 
Every  word  vibrates  with  the  thrill  of  joys,  sorrows,  hopes,  devout 
aspirations,  once  warm,  and  though  past,  not  extinct.  I  leel  in  that 
vibration  the  harmony  of  the  Christian  fellowship  through  the  ages, 
as  in  the  sound  of  the  voices  praying  or  confessing  by  my  side,  1 
feel  the  harmony  of  the  present  communion  of  saints.  So  that  our 
confessions  and  anthems,  our  collects  and  doxologies,  do  for  the 
past  what  our  public  assembly  and  presence  with  each  other  do  for 
the  present — they  make  palpable,  actual  the  Communion  of  Saints. 

I  know  this  view  is  cpen  to  the  criticism  that  it  is  purely  specula- 
tive ;  that,  though  it  seems  to  be  fact,  it  is  not  verifiable ;   that  men 


264  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

do  not  feel  so.  But  it  is  just  this  which  is  contended;  that  the 
reason  the  Church  cHngs  with  such  tenacity  to  its  Liturgical  Forms, 
is  found  in  this  sense  of  communion  through  them  with  the  whole 
Church  past  and  present. 

This  is  the  meaning  of  the  peculiar  power  the  Anglican  Service 
exercises  over  those  who  use  it.  Men  explain  the  charm  of  this 
service  by  its  beautiful  literary  form,  its  fine  old  English.  But  that 
would  explain  its  fascination  over  the  more  cultured,  not  its  hold 
on  the  unlettered — on  the  many  who  are  insensible  to  the  charm  of 
style,  or  the  rhythm  of  old  English.  No;  it  is  because  it  has  been 
the  channel  of  devotion  for  so  many  successive  generations,  that  it 
takes  such  deep  hold  of  men  to-  day.  These  ancient  prayers  and 
responses,  like  an  old  musical  instrument,  are  full  of  echoes  from 
strains  played  on  them  by  past  generations,  A  great  writer  de- 
scribes a  rustic  going  to  the  village  church  after  the  death  of  a  beloved 
parent,  and  the  effect  the  Liturgic  service  had  upon  him:  "The 
Church  Service  was  the  best  channel  he  could  have  found  for  his 
mingled  regret,  yearning  and  resignation ;  its  interchange  of  be- 
seeching cries  for  help,  with  outbursts  of  faith,  and  its  recurrent 
responses  and  the  familiar  rhythm  of  its  collects,  seemed  to  speak 
for  him  as  no  other  form  of  worship  could  have  done."  What  was 
true  of  this  sorrowing  rustic  is  true  of  great  bodies  of  men  ;  no  pub- 
lic prayer  or  acts  of  worship,  made  for  the  special  occasion,  can 
ever  afford  what  the  old  forms  offer.  True  Liturgical  Forms  cannot 
be  made  at  all ;  they  must  grow.  As  each  year  adds  another  growth 
of  branch  to  the  tree,  so  wealth  of  fellowship  accumulates  genera- 
tion by  generation  on  the  ancient  prayer,  confession,  litany.  They 
are  no  longer  the  voice  of  one  man,  the  minister  ;  they  are  not  even 
the  aggregated  utterance  of  the  present  congregation  only;  they  are 
full  of  echoes  from  the  past ;  the  Church  of  the  Ages  is  heard 
praising,  supplicating,  adoring,  through  them. 

At  this  point  in  the  preparation  of  this  paper  my  attention  was 
arrested  by  a  paragraph  bearing  on  the  subj  ect,  which  occurs  in  the 
Yale  lectures  of  that  distinguished  non-conformist,  Dr.  Dale. 
Speaking  of  the  conduct  of  public  worship,  he  says  that  for  some 
time  he  had  "a  mistaken  impression  that  extemporaneous  prayer 
might  include — in  addition  to  its  own  excellence — the  characteristic 
excellence  of  a  liturgy.  But,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "we  must  make 
our  choice.     In  extemporaneous  prayer,  the  stateliness,  the  majesty, 


DR.  stork's    essay.  265 

the  esthetic  beauty  of  such  a  service  as  tliat  of  tlie  Anglican  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  the  power  which  it  derives  from  venerable 
associations,  are  impossible.  We  must  be  content  with  simplicity, 
directness,  pathos,  reverence,  fervor  ;  and,  if  we  are  less  vividly  con- 
scious than  those  who  use  a  Liturgy  ihat  we  are  walking  in  the  foot- 
steps of  the  saints  of  other  centuries,  we  may  find  compensation  in 
a  closer  and  more  direct  relation  to  the  actual  life  of  the  men, 
women,  and  children,  who  are  waiting  with  ourselves  for  the  meroy 
and  help  and  pity  of  God.  We  lose  less  than  we  may  gain."  "  You 
cannot  have  the  venerable  association,"  says  the  antagonist  of  Litur- 
gical Forms;  "but  you  may  have  something  better,  viz.,  the 
warmth  and  freedom  of  e.xtemporaneous  prayer."  But  is  it  better? 
If  Dr.  Dale  and  his  friends  would  analyze  what  they  mean  by  that 
vague  generality,  "venerable  associations,"  they  might  find  reason 
to  change  this  comparative  valuation.  By  "  venerable  associations" 
the  non-liturgist  means  that  pleasing  sense  of  the  picturesque  which 
belongs  to  all  that  is  past.  It  is  put  by  him  in  the  same  category 
with  old  ruins,  old  family  relics,  mementos  of  distinguished  persons 
of  former  ages.  It  belongs  to  the  region  of  sentiment.  It  is  classed 
along  with  "the  stateliness,  the  majesty,  the  aesthetic  beauty"  of  a 
Liturgy.  They  are  all  purely  aesthetic  qualities.  But  is  that  all 
that  comes  to  us  from  the  past?  Is  our  connection  with  the  Church 
of  former  ages  only  a  matter  of  sentiment,  of  aesthetic  feelings?  It 
is  a  great  deal  more.  It  is  really  a  connection  of  the  same  nature 
as  that  which  binds  us  to  the  Church  of  the  present.  And  the 
depth  of  solemnity,  the  awe,  the  thrill,  the  sense  of  sacredness  that 
we  cannot  but  feel  as  we  use  these  anthems  and  prayers  and  confes- 
sions worn  with  the  devotions  of  ages  of  worshipers-,  is  nothing  less 
than  the  solemn  realization  of  the  Communion  of  the  Saints.  If  that 
is  what  is  meant  by  "  venerable  associations,"  then  I  say  no  "  closer 
relation  to  the  actual  life  of  men  and  women"  about  us  can  ever 
make  good  its  loss.  No  fellowship  of  the  Church  now  existent, 
though  intensified  to  the  highest  degree,  can  ever  make  up  for  that 
which  is  lost  by  breaking  the  continuity  with  the  Church  of  the  past. 
The  very  fact  that  the  members  of  that  body  are  no  longer  on  the 
earth,  but  in  heaven,  gives  a  color,  a  quality,  a  tone  to  the  devotion 
that  uses  their  ancient  form,  which  nothing  else  can  supply.  As 
well  say  that  the  fellowship  of  brothers  and  sisters  living  with  us  can 
supply  the  loss  of  father  and  mother.  Every  such  quality  is  unique  : 
18 


266  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

it  is  itself  and  not  another ;  and  another  cannot  take  its  place,  any 
more  than  a  better  quality  of  water  will  take  the  place  of  bread  in 
supplying  the  wants  of  the  body. 

To  break  up  the  order,  to  have  something  novel,  is  in  so  far  to 
break  the  continuity  of  the  Church.  The  fellowship  is  narrowed 
down  ;  the  volume  of  worship  is  thinned ;  we  are  once  more  cut 
loose  from  "  the  goodly  fellowship  of  the  prophets,  the  noble  army 
of  the  martyrs,  the  holy  Church  throughout  the  world,  that  doth 
acknowledge  God." 

That  Public  Worship  will  tend  to  make  for  itself  an  Established 
Liturgical  Form,  it  seems  to  me,  is  one  of  those  facts  so  deeply 
imbedded  in  our  religious  nature,  that  no  revolt  from  it  can  ever 
be  permanent.  We  are  beginning  to  see  the  signs  of  a  return  from 
the  great  insurrection  against  form  that  marked  the  Puritan  Revival. 
And  now  let  us  look  at  that  revolt,  and  see  what  lesson  it  has  for  us. 

3.  That  revolt  againt  forms  of  worship,  which  spread  through 
so  many  religious  bodies,  and  modified  the  habits  of  even  the 
Liturgical  bodies,  was  not,  I  am  persuaded,  merely  a  diseased 
growth.  To  think  so  would  be  a  kind  of  treason  to  human  nature; 
it  would  be  of  the  nature  of  schism,  dividing  the  body  of  Christ  on 
a  mere  side  issue.  The  hatred  of  the  Puritan  for  the  Prayer- Book 
was  not  merely  a  sympathetic  irritation,  extending  itself  from  his 
abhorrence  of  Prelacy  and  Romanizing  doctrine.  The  Wesleyan 
revival  knew  nothing  of  Prelacy  or  Romish  errors;  and  the  strong 
impulse  of  the  Church  in  America  to  a  free  form  of  public  worship 
surely  could  not  be  credited  to  a  sympathy  with  Puritanism  or 
Independency. 

The  revolt  against  Liturgical  Forms  was  as  really  rooted  in  the 
religious  nature  as  the  tendency  to  establish  forms.  It  was  the  form 
taken  by  the  natural  craving  for  a  free  prayer,  the  spontaneous  up- 
lifting of  the  soul  to  God  on  the  need  and  impulse  of  the  hour. 
Dr.  Dale  is  right  when  he  says  that  something  must  be  given  up 
if  we  are  to  confine  ourselves  exclusively  to  Liturgical  Forms. 
Freedom  must  be  given  up ;  not  the  lawless  license  to  do  as  one 
plea.ses,  but  the  scope  for  those  new  creations  of  life  that  a  Church 
if  really  living  will  put  forth  in  the  impulse  of  the  worshiping 
hour.  There  grows  a  rigidity  at  last  out  of  the  exclusive  use  of 
these  old  established  forms.  Against  this,  human  nature,  when 
thoroughly  alive,  will  revolt.     It  has  revolted,  and  when  it  does 


DR.  stork's    essay.  26/ 

not  revolt,  as,  it  ijiay  be  urged,  it  did  not  for  many  ages  in  the 
Mediaeval  Church,  it  is  because  it  falls  exhausted,  because  it  loses 
that  peculiar  mark  of  the  Christian  life,  its  elasticity,  its  spring, 
its  unexpected  putting  forth  of  new  shoots  in  directions  never 
before  dreamed  of.  This  lack  of  vitality  was  the  mark  of  the 
Church  in  the  Middle  Ages.  It  was  not  dead,  as  some  Protest- 
ants delight  to  aver ;  but  it  certainly  was  oppressed  with  a  fear- 
ful lassitude.  It  lived,  but  under  oppression,  without  any  power 
of  initiation.  It  could  only  live;  it  could  not  originate  any  new 
life.  But  when  the  revival  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies came,  then  the  yoke  that  the  Mediaeval  Church  was  too  lan- 
guid to  feel  oppressive,  became  intolerable.  The  young  life  beat 
itself  against  the  bars  of  chant  and  confession  and  collect ;  it 
broke  through.  I  do  not  blame  it.  It  was  inevitable.  And  it 
always  will  be  inevitable.  Life  that  has  no  scope  for  new  expres- 
sion, must  struggle  with  a  sense  of  imprisonment.  And  where 
there  is  life  there  will  be  new  expression  of  it  :  the  substance  of 
the  Christian  life  is,  indeed,  the  same  in  all  ages  and  in  all  men ; 
yet  in  every  soul,  in  every  congregation,  on  almost  every  occasion, 
it  will  flame  out  in  some  special  form.  And  if  there  is  nothing  but 
the  iron  uniformity  of  the  established  form,  the  soul  will  at  last 
mutiny,  and  demand  one  utterance  that  shall  be  all  its  own.  Give 
it  vent ;  let  the  mood  of  sorrow,  of  hope,  of  special  thanksgiving 
or  supplication,  go  up  to  God  in  a  fresh  cry  like  no  other  cry  before, 
and  for  the  main  of  public  worship  the  sense  of  the  congregation 
will  readily  fall  back  on  the  fixed  form.  But  shut  it  in,  say — speak 
through  these  provided  channels,,  or  not  at  all — and  there  will  be 
insurrection ;  you  will  have  Puritanism  with  its  stern  hatred,  its 
blind,  bitter  detestation,  its  total  destruction  of  Liturgical  Forms. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  a  mistake  that  the  English  Church 
gave  no  place  for  the  spontaneous  feeling  of  the  hour,  and  men 
assembled  for  worship.  To  say  that  men  do  not  need  new  forms  of 
expression;  that  the  old  is  better;  that  what  was  good  enough  for 
the  fathers  is  good  enough  for  us,  is  to  say  that  the  Unity  of  the 
Church  in  all  ages  is  not  a  Unity,  but  a  Uniformity.  "JTc-  are 
members  one  of  another;''  but  the  very  Unity  which  is  constituted 
by  the  united  members,  recjuires  that  each  member  should  have  its 
own  special  life  and  function,  unlike  all  others. 

But,  of  course,  no  partisan  of  Liturgical  Forms — no  worshiper  of 


268  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  past,  simply  because  it  is  the  past — will  see  this,  any  more  than 
the  enemy  of  Liturgies  can  feel  the  need  of  fellowship  with  any  age 
but  his  own.  Some  theologians  seem  to  think  that  Church  History 
stopped  a  couple  of  centuries  ago,  and  that  all  we  can  do  now  is 
to  reproduce  the  past  in  our  churches,  as  we  reproduce  English 
history  in  our  plays  on  the  stage.  The  whole  impulse  of  the  exclu- 
sively liturgical  body  is  to  make  the  Christian  life  of  to-day  but  a 
pale  image  of  life  centuries  ago.  This  is  to  destroy,  by  our  insistence 
on  Liturgical  Forms,  the  very  basis  on  which  alone  they  can 
reasonably  be  urged.  If  the  life  of  the  Church  to-day  is  no  real, 
original,  creative  power,  but  only  a  playing  over  on  the  barrel 
organ  of  archseology  the  tunes  of  the  past,  then  there  can  be  no 
fellowship  with  the  past  at  all.  Fellowship  is  possible  only  between 
living  beings;  and  to  say  that  the  Church  cannot  strike  out  any- 
thing new — to  brand  all  that  is  fresh  and  individual  with  the  mark 
"  JVova,  pulchra,falsa'' — is  to  say  it  has  no  life,  only  a  galvanized 
simulacrum  of  life  borrowed  from  what  once  lived.  Do  we  not 
see  that  this  is  to  cut  up  the  fellowship  of  the  saints  from  the  roots  ? 
The  Puritans  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  Puritans  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  would  cut  it  up  by  breaking  w-ith  the  past;  the  exclu- 
sive Liturgical  bodies  would  cut  it  up  by  breaking  on  the  wheel  the 
living,  creative  Church  of  to-day.  But  what  profits  it  to  discuss 
whether  we  shall  hold  by  the  communion  of  the  past  or  that  of  the 
present?  It  is  like  asking,  Shall  we  give  up  the  head  or  the  heart. 
It  is  only  a  question  of  what  death  we  shall  die. 

We  must  remember  then  the  two  forces  in  the  religious  nature ; 
that  by  which  it  holds  by  the  past,  and  that  by  which  it  projects 
itself  into  the  future.  It  is  the  problem  of  our  age  to  reconcile  the 
two.  He  who  says — Give  us  the  old  Liturgical  Forms  and  nothing 
else;  the  Church  found  them  enough  for  ages,  and  so  may  we — he, 
I  say,  is  blind  and  knows  not  whereof  he  affirms.  He  has  one-half 
the  problem :  but  that  which  solves  only  half  a  problem  is  no  solu- 
tion at  all.  And  he  who  says,  Away  with  forms ;  give  us  the  free 
order  ;  let  us  speak  only  as  the  spirit  moves — he  has  the  other  half; 
and  that,  too,  is  no  solution.  Until  we  can  make  man  in  his  relig- 
ious nature  to  look  only  before  him  into  the  future,  we  cannot  let 
go  our  Liturgical  Forms ;  and  until  we  have  made  him  to  look  only 
after,  backward  to  the  past,  we  cannot  give  up  free  prayer. 

Of  course  it  is  possible  to  deny  this.     Not  only  so,  but  what  is 


DR.  stork's    essay.  269 

worse,  it  is  possible  honestly  not  to  see  it.  Do  you  say  that  the 
shouting  Methodist,  with  his  outspoken  detestation  of  collects  and 
confessions,  is  only  a  canting  hypocrite?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  the  churchly  dignitar\",  who  shudders  at  an  extemporaneous 
prayer,  is  a  pompous  Pharisee  who  has  the  form  of  godliness  without 
the  power  ?  Dismiss  such  easy  solutions  of  the  difficulty  as  these. 
If  only  it  were  so,  that  all  the  opposers  of  Liturgies  were  hypocrites, 
and  all  the  defenders  of  them  Pharisees,  it  would  be  easier  to  deal 
with  this  question.  But  they  are  only  too  honest.  They  speak  just 
what  they  feel.  You  may  persuade  one  who  can  but  will  not  see, 
at  last  to  see.  But  who  will  give  sight  to  the  blind  ?  It  is  terribly 
possible  to  cultivate  religious  blindness.  We  may  steadily  cultivate 
one  side  of  our  religious  nature  till  other  parts  shrivel  and  lose  their 
sensibility;  and  then  it  will  seem  as  if  everything  that  appeals  to 
other  sensibilities  than  those  left  to  us,  were  fantastic,  unreal,  a  mere 
outburst  of  fanaticism  or  folly.  One  may  so  steadily  look  at  the 
past  that  after  awhile  he  has  no  eye  for  anything  not  cast  in 
the  old  moulds;  he  has  no  life  in  himself  that  seeks  new  channels  ; 
he  becomes  like  the  artist  who  copies  the  old  master  so  long  that  at 
last  his  pencil  refuses  to  draw  any  outline  but  Raphael's,  to  compose 
any  subject  but  in  the  manner  of  Leonardo.  Or  we  may  insist  so 
strenuously  on  our  individual  freedom,  that  at  last  the  nerve  of  con- 
nection with  the  Church  Universal  is  paralyzed,  and  we  have  no 
feeling  for  what  is  saintly  or  heroic  in  the  old  forms ;  the  Church 
begins  with  us,  extends  as  far  as  our  circle  of  companions,  and  so 
ends.  And  so  men  can  after  awhile  honestly  wonder  what  any  one 
can  find  in  a  Liturgy  to  satisfy  his.  devotional  longings  ;  "It  is  so 
cold,  so  dead,  so  formal ;"  and  to  him  it  is  :  it  has  no  life  from  the 
past  in  it  for  him,  for  to  the  past  he  is  deaf,  blind.  But  that  is  his 
loss;  not  the  measure  of  what  the  Church  needs,  or  what  other  men 
in  a  healthier  state  crave.  And  so  another  shudders  at  a  free  prayer ; 
"What  is  the  use  of  it?  it  is  so  new,  so  strange."  Yes,  it  is  strange, 
for  his  life  is  all  in  the  past ;  he  thinks  and  feels  in  the  grooves  of 
other  men's  spiritual  movements ;  he  has  quelled  all  individual  life 
of  his  own,  until  anything  unwonted  in  worship  seems  a  solecism, 
a  piece  of  irreligion,  a  profanity.  We  do  with  ourselves  in  one 
direction  of  our  spiritual  life,  just  what  we  see  very  clearly  the 
scientific  investigator  is  apt  to  do  with  his  whole  spiritual  being. 
We  neglect  it  till  it  is  shriveled  and  numb,  and  then,  like  the  scien- 


2/0  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

tific  skeptic,  because  our  paralyzed  sensibility  in  a  certain  direc- 
tion reports  nothing,  nothing,  we  declare,  is  there.  The  skeptic 
loses  the  use  of  his  spiritual  nature,  and  then  declares  there  is 
nothing  spiritual.  The  modern  religionist  cuts  himself  loose  from 
the  Church  Catholic,  and  then,  grown  insensible  to  any  need  of  the 
Communion  of  Saints,  asserts  there  is  no  such  communion  outside 
his  little  circle;  and  the  Liturgical  partisan,  binding  all  his  religious 
nature  down  to  the  Procrustean  bed  of  an  exclusive  form,  and  in 
time  fitted  to  that,  is  amazed  that  it  should  be  possible  for  men  to 
feel  any  devotional  need  not  provided  for  in  the  collects  or  confes- 
sions. 

But  every  man  who  knows  something  of  the  cunning  tricks 
human  nature  plays,  will  be  careful  how  he  measures  the  Universe 
by  the  ten-inch  rule  of  his  own  tastes  and  feelings.  He  will  not  in- 
sist that  there  is  nothing  in  what  a  great  part  of  the  Christian  body 
prizes  and  draws  nutriment  from,  because  it  does  not  hit  his  fancy. 
If,  when  he  looks  steadily  in  the  direction  in  which  great  bodies  of 
other  Christians  are  seeing  visions,  he  discerns  nothing,  he  will 
not  at  once  cry  out,  "Stuff  and  nonsense;  there  is  nothing  there  !" 
but  ask  whether  possibly  he  may  not  be  dull  of  vision. 

I  submit  that  the  Liturgist  is  not  all  right,  and  the  defender  of  a 
free  order  all  Avrong.  Neither  is  the  reverse  the  truth.  They  are 
both  right  positively  ;  and  both  wrong  negatively.  The  Liturgist  is 
right  in  approving  the  power  and  fitness  of  the  established  and 
ancient  order ;  and  the  defender  of  free  prayer  is  right  in  his  advo- 
cacy of  spontaneous  utterance  in  worship.  The  Liturgist  is  wrong 
when  he  says,  "No  free  prayer;"  and  the  opposer  of  Liturgies  is 
wrong  when  he  says,  "No  Liturgical  Forms."  They  are  the  two 
halves  of  a  divided  sphere  :  each  half  by  itself  is  false  ;  join  it  to 
the  other,  and  you  have  the  round,  completed  truth. 

I  return  to  the  words  with  which  this  paper  begins:  "The 
question  of  Liturgies  is  not  a  great  question  in  Christianity,  but 
it  it  one  that  can  be  solved  only  by  appeal  to  great  Christian  prin- 
ciples." These  principles  are  the  freedom  of  the  individual  mem- 
ber, and  the  unity  of  the  Christian  body.  They  are  the  two  great 
structural,  or  if  we  may  speak  Platonically,  architectonic  facts  of 
the  Christian  life.  Between  them  the  Church  for  eighteen  centuries 
has  been  oscillating,  grasping  now  the  one,  and  then  the  other, 
but  never  holding  the  two  in  completeness  at  once.     Hold  exclu- 


DR.  STORK  S    ESSAY.  2/1 

sively  the  one,  the  freedom  of  the  individual,  and  you  will  have 
a  free  and  shifting  order;  hold  only  the  other,  the  unity  of  the 
body,  and  you  will  have  a  prescribed,  unbroken  Liturgical  order. 
It  is  to  be  hoped  the  age  will  come  when  the  Church  will  be 
strong  enough  and  liberal  enough  to  hold  both  at  once ;  and  then 
the  Liturgical  question  will  be  settled  forever. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  perfect 
Liturgical  Form  is  a  growth  :  it  cannot  be  made.  We  may  con- 
struct an  elaborate  order ;  we  may  make  it  as  august  and  stately  as 
we  will;  but  we  cannot  breathe  into  it  the  full  vital  sense,  the  glow, 
the  flush,  the  vibrating  harmony  of  the  fellowship  of  the  saints. 
Only  the  use  of  generations  of  worshiping  men  and  wom^n  can  do 
that. 

The  best  approach  to  this  ideal  is  to  select  only  the  old  ;  not  to 
attempt  to  make  our  Liturgical  Forms  de  novo.  It  is  the  misfortune 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  that  she  has  had  so  many  Liturgies.  She 
has  changed  them  so  often  that  no  one  order  is  venerable.  The 
chord  is  always  broken.  But  this  we  can  do  :  We  can  compose  an 
order  to-day  from  material  long  used  and  resonant  with  the  relig- 
ious fervors,  the  penitence  and  aspiration  of  former  ages.  We  have 
not  the  perfect  instrument,  but  we  can  make  an  instrument  from 
the  mellow  fragments  of  antiquity  that  lie  all  around,  and  the  tones 
of  the  Past  will  reverberate  through  it. 

And  we  can  leave  room  for  the  spontaneous  utterance  of  the 
Present.  Some  maintain  that  the  day  when  a  great  Liturgical 
prayer,  or  chant,  or  confession,  could  be  written,  has  passed  away ; 
that  every  age  has  its  own  peculiar  gift,  and  that  in  former  genera- 
tions the  Liturgical  gift  was  rich  and  varied  ;  that  we  have  the  gift 
of  activity,  not  of  lofty  devotional  utterance.  It  may  be  so.  I 
think  it  more  than  probable.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  the  Church  of 
to  day  has  its  own  peculiar  life,  solitary,  the  offspring  of  the  hour. 
For  this  it  finds  no  adequate  utterance  in  the  old  forms  :  it  craves 
a  new  voice.     Let  it  have  it. 

As  the  result  of  the  thoughts  considered  in  this  paper,  I  submit 
the  following  propositions  : 

1.  That  the  Church  for  its  public  worship  needs  Liturgical 
Forms  as  an  adequate  expression  of  the  solemnity  of  its  united  ap- 
proach to  the  Creator. 

2.  That  an  established  and  venerable  order  most  fully  realizes  the 
Communion  of  Saints. 


2/2  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

3.  That  no  order  of  public  service  can  be  considered  complete 
which  does  not  by  some  free  prayer  provide  for  the  expression  of 
the  feeling  peculiar  to  the  time  and  circumstances. 

4.  That  the  ideal  order  cannot  be  made,  but  must  grow  by  the 
use  of  generations  of  worshipers. 

5.  That  any  change  of  Liturgical  Forms  from  the  long-estab- 
lished order,  except  for  doctrinal  reasons,  is  to  be  deprecated  as 
breaking  the  continuity  of  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  in  wor- 
ship. 

6.  That  in  framing  a  Liturgy,  if  a  Church  is  so  unfortunate  as 
not  to  have  an  established  order,  the  various  parts  are  to  be 
chosen  from  Liturgies  already  consecrated  by  long  use  ;  and  that 
collects,  anthems,  confessions,  responsive  orders,  are  not  to  be  made 
de  710V0. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  L.  E.  ALBERT,  D.  D.  [General  Synod.) 
Dr.  L.  E.  Albert  said  that  he  was  glad  to-day  of  his  connection 
with  the  General  Synod,  because  the  principles  of  worship  so  ably 
and  beautifully  set  forth  in  the  paper  of  Dr.  Stork,  were  the  prin- 
ciples recognized  in  that  body.  Its  order  of  service  happily  pre- 
served the  continuity  of  the  past  life  of  the  Church  with  the  pres- 
ent, in  the  adoption  of  forms  sacred  through  long  association,  and 
in  making  provision  at  the  same  time  for  peculiar  needs  of  the  hour 
in  unwritten  prayers.  The  Liturgy  which  the  Liturgical  Commit- 
tee, of  which  he  was  a  member,  were  under  orders  to  publish  in  its 
provisional  form,  fully  embodied  these  principles  and  was  adapted 
to  give  them  effect. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  F.  W.  CONRAD,  D.  D.     {General Synod.) 

I  have  listened  with  no  ordinary  interest  to  the  paper  just  read. 
It  treats  of  the  subject  of  worship  and  discusses  the  best  manner  of 
performing  it.  Two  modes  of  worship  have  prevailed  in  the 
Church — the  liturgical  and  the  spontaneous  and  free.  God  is  Him- 
self the  author  of  liturgical  forms  of  prayer  and  prescribed  an  order 
of  service  for  the   Jewish  Church.     But  notwithstanding  this,  the 


I 


DISCUSSION.  273 

spontaneous  utterances  of  free  prayer  in  secret,  in  social  meetings, 
and  on  extraordinary  occasions,  were  also  called  forth  under  the 
promptings  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  was  it  otherwise  in  the  primi- 
tive Church.  Christ  furnished  His  disciples  with  a  form  of  prayer 
and  thus  introduced  the  liturgical  principle  of  worship  into  the 
Christian  Church.  The  Apostles  offered  spontaneous  supplications 
to  God,  and  thus  inaugurated  free  prayer  as  a  component  part  of 
public  worship.  Both  methods  of  worship  have  thus  received 
the  divine  sanction,  and  both  have  been  exemplified  in  the  Mosaic 
and  Christian  dispensations. 

The  history  of  public  worship  proves  that  there  is  a  felt  want 
among  Christians,  both  for  the  use  of  forms  and  for  the  utterance  of 
spontaneous  prayers.  To  supply  these  wants  is  the  design  of  litur- 
gical services  and  of  free  prayer.  In  the  Jewish  Church  the 
liturgical  method  predominated ;  in  the  Primitive  Church  the  use  of 
free  prayer  predominated.  The  Romish  Church  gradually  sup- 
pressed free  prayer,  and  followed  a  long  prescribed  form  of  worship 
in  an  unknown  tongue.  The  Protestant  Church  revived  free  prayer, 
and  while  it  retained  the  most  devotional  forms  of  worship,  short- 
ened and  purified  the  Church  service. 

Luther  accepted  the  liturgical  principle  in  worship  as  scriptural, 
and  prepared  several  liturgies.  The  service  of  his  last  liturgy  was 
shorter  than  that  of  the  first.  He  had  also  prepared  the  outlines 
of  a  still  more  simple  form  of  service  before  his  death.  Zwingli 
and  Calvin  also  approved  the  use  of  liturgical  forms  in  public 
worship.  Hence,  all  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation — Luther- 
an, Zwinglian  and  Calvinistic — recognized  the  liturgical  princi- 
ple, not  to  the  exclusion  of,  but  as  co-ordinate  with,  the  use  of  free 
prayer. 

Muhlenberg  retained  the  principal  parts  of  the  simpler  liturgical 
service  prepared  by  Luther,  and  the  first  Lutheran  churches  in  this 
country  used  liturgical  services.  But  under  the  predominating  in- 
fluence of  Puritanic  opposition  to  all  forms  of  prayer  and  liturgical 


2/4  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

services  in  public  worship,  the  Puritanic  method  of  worship  by 
free  prayer  alone,  was  introduced  into  nearly  all  the  Lutheran 
Churches  of  this  country.  A  general  reaction,  however,  against 
this  Puritanic  extreme  has  taken  place  during  the  last  twenty  years. 
Congregationalists  themselves  now  confess  that  their  fathers  went 
too  far  in  their  exclusion  of  all  liturgical  forms,  and  now  not  a  few 
of  them  use  responsive  readings  of  Scripture,  the  Creed  and  the 
Lord's  Prayer  in  public  worship.  Similar  sentiments  are  uttered 
and  liturgical  forms  used  among  Presbyterians,  Methodists  and 
some  other  denominations  in  this  country.  Under  the  influence  of 
this  reaction,  the  Lutheran  Church  has  gone  back  to  her  first 
principles,  and  furnished  her  churches  with  liturgical  services,  con- 
taining the  purest  and  most  devotional  parts  of  worship,  developed 
under  religious  experience,  and  the  indicting  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Some  of  the  Churches  have  adopted  these  liturgical  forms 
exclusively,  others  continue  to  conduct  public  worship  by  free 
prayer  alone,  while  others  still  combine  both  methods,  using  litur- 
gical forms  and  spontaneous,  free  prayer  in  the  religious  services  of 
the  sanctuary.  Not  the  body  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  soul — 
not  the  soul  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  body  —but  body  and 
soul  in  organic  unity,  constitute  the  true  type  of  humanity.  In 
like  manner,  not  liturgical  forms  alone  to  the  exclusion  of  free 
prayer — nor  free  prayer  alone  to  the  exclusion  of  liturgical  forms — 
but  liturgical  forms  in  connection  with  free  prayer,  constitute  the 
true  scriptural  ideal  of  a  devotional  service  for  the  worship  of  God 
in  His  sanctuary.  The  liturgical  form  supplies  the  general  wants 
of  the  worshiper  in  his  approach  to  God  ;  free  prayer  supplies  his 
peculiar  wants,  as  they  arise  from  time  to  time  under  the  changing 
circumstances  of  life. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.     {General  Synod.) 

There  can  be  but  one  judgment  in  regard  to  the  paper  just  read. 
It  was  marked  by  a  sobriety  of  judgment,  a  clearness  of  discrimina- 


DISCUSSION.  275 

tion,  a  hearty  appreciation  both  of  the  importance  and  difficuhy  of 
the  subject,  and  handled  with  a  freshness  and  vigor,  that  must  com- 
mend it  to  all  sober  and  reflecting  minds.  It  furnishes  food  for 
serious  meditation  in  regard  to  our  worship.  This  is  no  time  or 
place  to  venture  on  an  extemporaneous  criticism  of  its  literary  char- 
acter, but  I  think  all  were  delighted  with  the  style  of  it,  and  would 
agree  that  simply  as  an  essay  it  possessed  literary  merits  of  a  high 
order.  I  can  only  say  that  I  was  delighted,  and,  I  believe,  edified 
by  the  discussion. 

Rev.  G.  F.  Krotel,  D.  D.,  of  New  York,  appointed  to  read  the 
next  paper,  was  prevented  by  indisposition  both  from  preparing  an 
essay,  and  from  being  present. 

It  was  resolved  that  Rev.  Dr.  Mann  occupy  the  vacant  place. 

The  eleventh  paper  was  then  read. 


THESES  ON  THE  LUTHERANISM  OF  THE  FATHERS 
OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  THIS  COUNTRY. 

BY    REV.   W.  J.   MANN,  D.  D. 
Professor  in  the   Evangelical  Lutheran   Theological   Seminary,  Philadelphia. 

I.       THE    SUBJECT. 

WE  find,  that  in  the  presentation  of  the  subject  the  expression, 
"Fathers  of  the  Church,"  is  used.  We  understand  thereby, 
those  men  and  their  co-laborers,  who  were  the  founders  of  the 
Mother-Synod,  and,  consequently,  the  organizers  of  an  indepen- 
dent, self-governing,  Lutheran  Church-body  on  this  continent. 

2.  We  have  here  before  our  mind,  especially,  the  Rev.  Dr.  H.  M. 
Mi'ihlenherg  and  his  associates,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Brunnholz,  Hein- 
zebnann,  Handschuh,  Kurz,  Schiiize  and  others.  We  take  the 
Rev.  Dr.  H.  M.  Muhlenberg  as  the  most  eminent  type  of  their  doc- 
trinal position  and  practical  principles. 

3.  There  were  Lutheran  congregations  established,  and  Lutheran 
pastors,  of  Dutch,  Swedish  and  German  origin,  active  in  this 
country  before  the  time  of  Muhlenberg.  About  their  doctrinal 
views  we  can  hardly  entertain  any  doubt.  We  know  that,  on  account 
of  their  Lutheran  convictions,  some  of  them  had  suffered  persecu- 
tion, and  that  one  of  them,  the  Rev.  Justus  Falkner,  born  in  Zwic- 
kau, Saxony,  who  preached  first  in  Montgomery  county.  Pa.,  and  at 
a  later  period  to  Lutheran  congregations  at  New  York  and  Albany, 
published,  A.  D.  1708,  a  book  which  was  undoubtedly  called  forth 
by  his  discussions  with  Calvinists,  and  which  that  last  and  venerable 
champion  of  the  Lutheran  Orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
E.  Valentine  Loescher,  honors  with  the  title  of  a  "  Compendium 
DoctrincB  Anti- Calvinianum.'"  The  efforts  of  those  congregations 
and  of  those  men  left,  however,  no  distinguishable  trace  in  the 
evolution  and  organization  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country. 

4.  The  history,  not  of  the  Lutherans,  but  of  the  organization  of 
tlie  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country,  dates  from  the  fifth  decade  of 
the  last  century,  from  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  H.  M.  Muhlenberg 

(276) 


DR.  MANN  S    ESSAY.  277 

on  the  western  shore  of  the  Atlantic,  1742,  and  from  the  formation 
of  the  first  Synod,  1748.  The  inner  history  of  the  Church  wit- 
nesses to  a  considerable  deviation  from  the  principles  and  the  spirit 
of  the  Fathers,  since  the  first  decades  of  the  present  century. 
With  the  generation  of  the  "F^Digonoi,"  we  have,  however,  nothing 
to  do  here. 

5.  The  term  Lutheranism,  as  used  in  connection  with  the  subject- 
matter  before  us,  refers  not  only  to  the  doctrinal  position,  but  also 
to  its  practical  application,  and,  especially,  to  the  principles  and 
ways  of  pastoral  life, 

II.       THE   HISTORICAL  CONNECTION. 

1.  When  H.  M.  Muhlenberg  was  preparing  himself  for  the  min- 
istry at  Goettingen  and  Halle,  the  great  crisis,  through  which  ortho- 
dox Dogmatism  in  Germany  was  displaced  by  Pietism,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Rationalism  on  the  other,  was  almost  passed,  but  had 
produced  its  impression  upon  the  religious  mind  of  the  age. 

2.  As  there  were  "Pietists"  even  before  Spener,  though  that 
appellation  was  then  not  used,  so  there  were  orthodox  men  among 
the  Pietists,  who  had  no  sympathy  with  Rationalism,  Unionism, 
Indifferentism.  Whilst  they  opposed  error,  they  were  convinced 
that  Lutheran  Theology  had  something  better  to  live  on  than  bitter 
polemics  against  Christians  of  a  different  name,  and  had  to  show 
its  strength  also  in  other  directions. 

3.  Spener's  Pietism  was  not  heterodox.  Neither  was  it  separatis- 
tic.  It  was  not  a  revolution  against  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church.  Neither  was  it  the  establishment  of  a  sect.  But  it 
was  a  reaction  against  that  tendency,  which  often  considered  or- 
thodoxy as  the  great  end  of  Christianity,  and  forgot  that  it  was  the 
means  to  produce  sound  Christian  faith  and  life. 

4.  Spener's  Lutheranism  was  of  a  practical  character.  As  such, 
it  was  true  Christianity,  Spener  strove  to  excite  the  individuals  to 
personal  piety,  and  the  Church  to  measures  to  promote  that  end. 
But  he  was  very  far  from  undervaluing  the  Means  of  Grace,  or  from 
thinking  of  them  in  an  un-Lutheran  way.  The  practical  character 
combined  with  doctrinal  decision  and  precision,  which  we  see  in 
the  so-called  Old-Lutherans,  Islissourians,  Iowa-men,  and  others  of 
our  days,  was  the  very  Lutheranism  of  Spener's  "Pia  Desideria," 
save  the  acrimony  and  littleness  often  exhibited  now. 


278  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

5.  The  Lutheranism  and  Pietism  of  H.  M.  Muhlenberg,  and  of 
the  other  Fath^^rs,  was  after  the  type  of  Spener.  It  was  free  from 
that  indifference  toward  doctrinal  landmarks  and  toward  general 
literary  and  philosophical  culture,  which  was  observable  in  many 
Pietists;  it  was  free  from  sickly  sentimentalism  and  from  hypo- 
critical cant,  both  of  which  often  serve  as  a  substitute  for  religious 
fervor  and  moral  energy. 

6.  Of  other  extravagancies  also,  which  were  peculiar  to  the 
Pietism,  that,  especially  in  the  times  of  A  .H.  Francke,  maintained 
at  Halle  and  gave  odium  to  a  good  cause,  anxiety  to  the  mind  of 
Spener,  and  occasion  for  justifiable  attacks  on  the  part  of  E.  Val. 
Loescher  and  others,  we  find  no  traces  in  the  character  of  H.  M. 
Muhlenberg,  who,  even  as  a  student  at  Goettingen  and  Halle,  proved 
himself  a  man  of  the  right  Christian  practical  character,  by  taking 
an  active  interest  in  the  religious  education  and  other  necessities  of 
neglected  and  needy  children,  and  afterwards  by  accepting  the  call 
to  labor  among  Lutherans  in  the  far-off  regions  of  the  New  World. 
His  associates  in  the  great  work  were  men  of  similar  character. 

III.    THE  FIELD  AND  THE  LABOR. 

I.  The  social  conditions  which  the  Fathers  found  in  this  new 
field  of  the  Church,  were  much  at  variance  with  those  which  they 
had  left  in  Germany,  a  fact  which  well  deserves  to  be  noticed. 

(a)  In  Germany,  the  people  were  living  in  congregations,  which 
as  such  were  identical  with  the  local  civil  communalities.  In  this 
country,  the  people  were  dispersed  over  large  territories  and,  even 
in  larger  towns,  the  organization  of  Lutheran  congregations  had 
hardly  begun. 

(^)  In  Germany,  the  people  were  in  their  respective  localities  a 
homogeneous  mass  as  to  ethnology,  politics,  language,  habits,  relig- 
ious confession  and  forms  of  worship.  In  this  country,  the  different 
elements  from  various  parts  of  Europe,  and  also  from  various  pro- 
vinces of  Germany,  were  promiscuously  inter-located. 

(c)  In  Germany,  in  the  various  localities,  a  system  of  religious 
instruction  and  a  certain  Church  tradition  had  been  established. 
Things  were  generally  in  a  settled  condition.  In  this  country,  the 
reverse  of  all  this  was  prevalent,  and  out  of  the  chaos  the  churchly 
cosmos  had  to  be  formed. 

{a)  In  Germany,  the  lines  separating  the  various  denominations 


DR.  MANN  S    ESSAY.  2/9 

were  well  defined,  and,  in  social  life,  well  preserved.  In  this 
country,  the  various  Christian  parties  were  greatly  intermixed  with 
one  another  in  all  places  ;  intermarriages  between  the  adherents  of 
the  various  confessions  were  the  order  of  the  day. 

2.  To  the  practical  mind  of  the  fathers,  it  appeared  self-evident 
that  these  peculiar  social  conditions  could  not  be  changed ;  that  to 
gather  the  Lutherans  in  separate  localities,  and  there  to  organize 
them  in  congregations  after  the  manner  of  Zinzendorf's  Moravian 
Missions,  was  out  of  the  question,  and  that  any  effort  made  in  this 
direction,  would,  in  the  end,  prove  abortive. 

3.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Pietism — which  was  not  under  all 
circumstances  a  distortion  of  Christianity  or  of  Lutheranism,  but 
had  in  its  best  form  been  a  healthful  reaction  of  practical  Chris- 
tianity against  ultra-theoretical,  dogmatical  orthodoxism,  and  an  in- 
dispensable element  in  the  progress  of  religious  life  in  Germany — 
had  done  its  share  in  preparing  the  Fathers  for  the  work  in  store 
for  them  in  the  New  World  Probably  without  Pietism  they  might 
never  have  crossed  the  ocean. 

4.  Under  those  peculiar  circumstances,  wherein  they  were  placed 
and  had  to  do  the  work  of  the  Master,  a  sense  of  wisdom  and  duty 
directed  them,  in  their  pastoral  activity  and  in  preaching,  to  avoid 
offensive  polemics,  which  would  have  produced  strife  in  families 
and  hatred  among  neighbors,  without  being  convincing  or  conduc- 
ive to  practical  piety. 

5.  Whilst  the  interests  of  the  Lutheran  Church  and  her  peculiar 
features  in  doctrines  and  in  forms  of  worship  lay  near  to  their  heart, 
they  acknowledged  no  barrier  in  the  shape  of  language,  nationality, 
color  or  social  position. 

6.  They  found  it  necessary  for  the  promotion  of  the  Church  and 
her  work,  for  the  maintenance  and  well-being  of  her  congregations 
and  of  her  people,  to  bring  about  an  organization  of  the  Church 
on  this  new  territory.  To  this  organization  they  gave  not  the 
polity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  the  essential  features  of  a 
Presbyterian  form  of  government,  being  convinced  that  under  the 
circumstances  with  which  they  had  to  deal,  such  a  form  of  govern- 
ment might  be  best  calculated  to  promote  the  interests  of  the 
Church  and  to  produce  a  desirable,  active  sympathy,  between  the 
pastors  and  the  people.  In  this  they  made  use  of  those  liberal 
principles,  peculiar  to  the  Lutheran  Church.     And  in  this  measure, 


280  '  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

to  bring  the  laity  into  active  co-operation  with  the  clergy  in  the 
government  of  Church  and  congregation,  they  carried  out  one  of 
the  "  Pia  Desideria  "  of  Spener,  one  of  the  principles  whereby  the 
Evangelical  Church  opposes  Romanism,  and  one  of  the  features  of 
Christianity  as  such. 

7.  That  our  Fathers'  were  far  from  radical  ideas  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  Church-affairs,  may  be  gathered  also  from  this — that  they 
carefully  guarded  against  any  obliteration  of  the  distinction  between 
the  "  ordo  Clericus"  and  "ordoLaicus"  and  practically  acknowl- 
edged, that  the  theologians  and  pastors  of  the  Church  had  a  sphere 
of  duty  peculiar  to  them,  and  that  their  special  interests  and 
rights  should  be  properly  taken  care  of.  Therefore,  also,  special 
"Ministerial  sessions"  at  the  meetings  of  Synod. 

8.  The  principle,  that  the  Church  has  to  exercise  discipline 
toward  her  members,  was  not  only  theoretically  acknowledged,  but 
it  was  practically  executed,  a  fact  for  which  we  could  gather  many 
striking  proofs  from  the  records  of  those  times.  The  question  of 
the  incompatibility  of  Lutheran  Church-membership  with  the  mem- 
bership of  so-called  secret  societies,  which  now  deservedly  claims 
attention,  was  at  that  time  not  agitated,  such  societies  then  not 
prevailing  as  they  now  do. 

9.  The  education  of  the  children  of  the  Church,  and  especially 
their  proper  religious  instruction,  was  one  of  the  great  cares  of 
those  Fathers.  They  not  only  considered  regular  catechisation  of 
the  young  as  one  of  the  most  essential  parts  of  pastoral  activity, 
but  they  also  endeavored  to  establish,  wherever  possible,  parochial 
schools,  and  made  the  education  of  teachers  one  of  their  special 
cares.  Schools  from  which  religious  instruction  should  be  ex- 
cluded, belonged  to  the  things  of  which  those  godly  men  had  no 
conception.     The  Sunday-schools  of  our  times  were  not  known  then. 

10.  They  considered  it  as  essentially  belonging  to  the  pastoral 
office,  to  take  a  lively  interest  in  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  indi- 
viduals entrusted  to  their  care.  We  see  them  not  only  in  an 
edifying  intercourse  with  the  families  and  visiting  the  sick  and  the 
dying,  but  we  also  observe,  that  they  endeavor  to  make  themselves 
sure  of  the  spiritual  condition  of  every  individual,  especially  before 
admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  deeply  felt  the  responsibility 
of  him  who  admits  and  of  those  who  are  admitted. 

1 1.  Of  the  character  of  the  sermons  of  the  Fathers  the  "  Hallische 


I 


DR.  MANN's    essay.  28  I 

Nachrichlen"  give  us  sufficient  information.  There  we  find  here 
and  there  introduced  the  leading  thoughts,  often  the  skeletons  of 
sermons,  preached  at  various  occasions.  We  receive  the  impression 
that  the  preaching  of  those  men  was  less  doctrinal  than  practical ; 
thoroughly  biblical  and  calculated  to  edify  the  faithful  and  to  lead 
sinners  to  repentance  and  to  faith  in  Christ,  whilst  it  was  in  strict 
harmony  with  the  confessional  character  of  our  Church. 

12.  Much  stress  did  the  Fathers  lay  upon  Pastoral  Conferences, 
where  they  discussed  biblical,  doctrinal  and  practical  questions,  took 
counsel  on  difficult  cases,  appertaining  to  the  pastoral  office  and 
experience,  encouraged  one  another  to  faithfulness  in  the  service, 
entrusted  to  them,  and  comforted  one  another  under  the  heavy 
trials  of  their  pastoral  life.  Those  conferences  they  found  excellent 
means  to  improve  their  own  usefulness  in  the  service  of  the  Lord. 

13.  Taken  all  in  all,  those  Fathers  were  very  far  from  giving  the 
Lutheran  Church,  as  they  organized  it  on  this  new  field  of  labor,  a 
form  and  character  in  any  essential  point  different  from  what  the 
Lutheran  Church  was  in  the  Old  World,  and  especially  in  Germany. 
They  retained  not  only  the  old  doctrinal  standards,  but  also  the  old 
traditional  elements  and  forms  of  worship;  the  Church-year  with  its 
great  festivals,  its  Gospel  and  Epistle  lessons,  the  Liturgy,  the  rite 
of  Confirmation,  preparatory  service  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  con- 
nected with  the  Confession  of  sins  and  with  the  Absolution. 

14.  It  would  be  unjust,  and  would  leave  this  short  delineation  of 
the  Lutheranism  of  those  founders  of  the  Lutheran  Church-organi- 
zation in  this  country  quite  incomplete,  if  we  would  not  refer  to  the 
manifestation  of  divine  grace  in  their  missionary  spirit,  personal  de- 
votion, energetic  conscientiousness,  self-sacrificing  zeal  and  power 
of  endurance,  wherewith  they  gave  themselves  to  the  work  to  which 
Providence  had  called  them.  Of  this  their  spiritual  endowment 
the  reports  testify,  which  are  embodied  in  the  "  Hallische  Nach- 
richten,"  those  invaluable  annals  of  that  great  foundation  period  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country.  And  to  this,  the  Church  it- 
self, as  they  left  it,  when  Christ  called  them  to  their  eternal  reward 
stood  as  a  lasting  monument. 

15.  The  founding  and  raising  of  our  Church  in  this  country  was 
during  the  last  century  evidently  a  missionary  work.  Those  Fathers 
were  indeed  Missionaries  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  term.  As  such, 
they  came  from  a  far-off  land  and  had  to  carry  on  their  labors  in 

19 


282  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

this  new  and  extensive  field,  under  very  peculiar  and  trying  circum- 
stances. That  this  extraordinary  state  of  things  should  have  exer- 
cised no  influence  at  all  upon  them,  would  seem  very  unnatural. 
They  had  to  miss  much  which  in  their  native  country  gave  charms 
and  strength  to  pastoral  life.  They  felt  the  need  of  the  sympathy  of 
those  also,  who,  though  of  another  flock,  served  the  same  Master ; 
and  whilst  never  forgetting  the  distinctive  character  of  Lutheranism, 
they  cherished  pleasant  relations  and  intercourse  here  and  there 
with  pastors  and  laymen  of  other  denorhinations,  and  at  various 
and  solemn  occasions  gave  and  received  signs  of  mutual  confidence 
and  esteem.  But  they  decisively  and  wisely  resisted  every  undue 
influence  from  outside,  by  which  Lutheranism  might  have  been 
placed  in  jeopardy. 

IV.   CONCLUSION. 

1.  The  doctrinal  position  of  those  Fathers  was  unmistakably 
Lutheran,  in  the  sense  in  which  Lutheranism  is  historically  known, 
and  is  something  individual  and  distinct,  and  as  such  stands  in  oppo- 
sition to  Romanism  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Zwingli,  Calvin  and  all 
other  so-called  Protestant  parties  on  the  other. 

2.  To  this  testify  among  other  things  the  following  facts  : 

(a)  Those  Fathers  were  admitted  to  the  ministry  on  condition 
of  their  own  declaration  that  they  were  in  harmony  with  the  Con- 
fessio  Augustana  Invariata,  and  with  all  the  other  Symbolical  Books 
of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

(b)  They  demanded  of  those  whom  they  admitted  to  the 
sacred  office,  the  same  condition.  The  declaration  had  to  be  given 
in  writing. 

(/)  They  strenuously  opposed  any  one  who  did  not  prove  faith- 
ful to  his  given  declaration,  whilst  being  in  the  ministry. 

(</)  They  allowed  no  organization  or  constitutions  of  congre- 
gations, without  demanding  the  acknowledgment  of  all  the  Symbol- 
ical Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  the  doctrinal  basis. 

(<?)  They  preached  and  prayed  in  harmony  with  the  Standards  of 
the  Church,  and  based  the  religious  instruction  of  the  young  upon 
them,  and  especially  upon  Luther's  Smaller  Catechism. 

(/)  They  understood  and  interpreted  these  Standards  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  founders  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  the  Six- 
teenth Century  understood  them. 


DISCUSSION.  283 

3.  Their  Lutheranism  did  not  differ  from  the  Lutheran  Orthodoxy 
of  the  preceding  period,  in  the  matter  of  doctrine,  but  to  an  extent  in 
the  manner  of  applying  it.  It  was  orthodoxy  practically  vitalized. 
They  were  less  theoretical  and  polemical,  than  preceding  genera- 
tions. Whilst  tolerant  toward  those  of  other  convictions,  they 
were,  however,  neither  indifferent  nor  unionistically  inclined,  and 
never  conformed  Lutheranism  to  any  other  form  of  Christianity, 
though  in  their  days  the  pressure  in  this  direction  was  heavy.  They 
actualized  their  own  Lutheran  convictions  through  a  noble,  exem- 
plary life  and  service.  Their  Pietism  was  truly  Lutheran  piety,  a 
warm-hearted,  devout,  active,  practical  Lutheranism. 

4.  Keeping  in  view  the  circumstances  under  which  they  had  to 
labor,  we  are  persuaded  that  just  such  men,  such  Lutherans,  such 
pastors,  were  the  proper  men  for  the  work,  to  which  in  those  times  a 
wise  Providence  had  called  them,  and  that  men  of  another  type 
would  never  have  accomplished  what  they  accomplished.  It  is 
worth  while  to  consider,  whether  any  other  manner  of  Lutheranism 
will  ever  perform  greater  things,  and  establish  the  Church  on  a  more 
lasting  basis  in  this  country,  and  better  serve  the  cause  of  Christ. 
Knowing  that  as  men  they  could  err  and  did  err,  we  praise  God 
that  through  His  grace  He  kept  them  in  the  true  faith,  and  made 
them  instruments  to  do  much  good,  and  to  lay  the  proper  founda- 
tion for  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  Western  hemisphere. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  G.  MORRIS,  D.  D.,  LL.D.  {General  Synod.) 
Dr.  Morris  expressed  his  gratification  with  the  valuable  paper  of 
Dr.  Mann ;  but  remarked,  that  of  necessity  some  points  of  interest 
connected  with  the  Lutheranism  of  the  Fathers  of  our  Church  in 
this  country,  were  omitted.  Dr.  Mann  could  not  have  condensed 
more  facts  into  the  time  which  he  occupied.  There  was  one  matter, 
however,  concerning  which  he  desired  to  make  inquiry.  Many 
years  ago  he  had  accompanied  a  venerable  clergyman,  of  the  Minis- 
terium  of  Pennsylvania,  to  a  preparatory  service  before  communion, 
held  in  what  was  then  one  of  the  most  secluded  parts  of  the  territory 
of  that  Synod,  and  in  one  of  its  oldest  congregations.  When  the 
time  came  for  the  confessional  prayer,  the  pastor  called  upon  an  old 
lady,  who,  in  a  peculiarly  shrill  and  piping  tone,  said  the  prescribed 


284  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

form.  He  desired  to  know  whether  this  was  a  usual  practice  among 
the  Fathers  of  our  Church,  or  one  which  was  simply  occasional, 
and  confined  to  certain  localities. 

REMARKS  BY  REV.  W.  J.  MANN.  ( General  Council.) 
Dr.  Mann  replied  that  he  was  under  the  impression  that  it  was 
frequently  employed.  A  former  sexton  of  his  church  had  often 
spoken  of  it,  and  told  him  that  for  many  years  he  had  been  assigned 
this  part.  The  design  of  the  custom  was  to  avoid  the  awkwardness 
attending  the  two-fold  position  which  the  minister  has  otherwise  to 
assume,  first  as  the  representative  of  the  congregation  of  sinners, 
and  then  immediately  afterward  as  the  representative  of  God, 
granting  and  announcing  forgiveness. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.     {General  Synod.) 
Dr.  Brown  asked  whether  it  was  in  accordance  with  sound  Luther- 
anism  for  a  woman  to  thus  lead  a  congregation  in  prayer,  in  the 
presence  of  the  pastor,  and  if  so,  what  warrant  could  be  had  for 
forbidding  women  to  teach  in  the  Church. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  W.  J.  MANN,  D.  D.  {General  Council.) 
Dr.  Mann  replied  that  it  would  be  perfectly  proper  for  a  woman 
to  lead  in  such  a  prayer,  in  case  there  were  no  man  present  willing 
to  do  so.  The  case  of  teaching  was  not  parallel.  In  the  one  case, 
the  woman  would  stand  in  the  place  of  the  sinner,  and  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  sinners,  begging  God  for  forgiveness ;  in  the  other,  she 
would  act  as  the  mouth-piece  of  God. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  G.  MORRIS,  D.  D.,  LL.D.  {General  Synod.) 
Dr.  Morris  said  that  there  was  another  point  to  which  he  desired 
to  refer.  He  would  have  been  pleased  to  have  heard  something  in 
Dr.  Mann's  paper,  concerning  the  exchange  of  pulpits  practiced  by 
Muhlenberg,  and  some  of  the  other  Fathers,  with  ministers  of  the 
various  English  denominations. 

The  discussion  that  followed  was  almost  conversational  in  form, 


DISCUSSION.  285 

and  was  participated  in  by  Drs.  Mann,  Spaeth,  Krauth,  Brown, 
Seiss  and  Rev.  Welden.  It  was  argued,  on  the  one  side,  that  the 
preaching  of  White  field,  and  Rev.  Peters  of  the  Church  of  England, 
in  Zion's  Church,  Philadelphia,  was  not  to  be  understood  as  pulpit 
fellowship;  that  they  did  not  preach  by  invitation  of  Lutheran 
ministers  to  Lutheran  congregations,  but  that  the  church-edifice 
was  simply  granted  them  to  conduct  in  it  their  own  services  for 
their  own  people.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  urged  that  this  expla- 
nation was  not  sufficient. 

The  remarks  handed  in  by  the  speakers  are  as  follows : 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  PROF.  C.  P.  KRAUTH,  D.  D.,  LL.D. 
(_  Genej-al  Council.) 

Dr.  Krauth  said  that  Dr.  Mann  had  very  properly  said  nothing  of 
the  "exchange  of  pulpits"  the  reciprocal  giving  and  taking  on  the 
part  of  our  Lutheran  Fathers,  as  nothing  equivalent  to  what  now 
passes  under  that  title  was  practiced  by  them.  The  Agenda  shows 
beyond  dispute  that  the  Rule  was  that  Lutheran  altars  were  open  to 
Lutheran  communicants  gnly.  And  the  history  of  the  time  shows 
that  the  Rule,  both  theoretical  and  practical,  was  that  Lutheran 
pulpits  are  for  Lutheran  ministers  only.  The  exceptions  were  rare, 
were  confined  to  extraordinary  cases,  and  were  believed  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  Rule,  as  consistent,  or,  if  you  please,  rigid 
Lutherans  define  it. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.  [General  Synod.) 
The  facts  as  they  exist,  and  have  in  part  been  stated  by  Dr. 
Mann  and  the  speakers  who  have  followed  him,  leave  no  room  to 
question  that  the  early  founders  of  Lutheranism  in  this  country  did 
cherish  a  liberal  spirit  and  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  other 
evangelical  denominations.  There  was  an  interchange  of  pulpits, 
and  of  other  ministerial  and  ecclesiastical  courtesies,  which  show 
that  they  recognized  each  other  as  belonging  to  the  one  "Holy 
Catholic  Church."     It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  facts  or  to  multiply 


286  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

proofs  of  this  general  statement.  Take  the  case  just  mentioned  of 
Rev.  Peters  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  officiating  regularly  on  the 
day  of  the  dedication  of  Zion  Church,  in  that  church  ;  or  of  Rev. 
Whitefield,  by  invitation  of  the  Ministerium,  addressing  the  children 
in  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  is  simply  ridiculous  to  say  that  the 
Church  was  given  as  a  matter  of  courtesy  for  them  to  hold  a  service 
for  themselves,  but  that  it  was  no  recognition  or  endorsement  of 
their  ministry.  Would  the  advocates  of  exclusivism  do  the  same 
thing  to-day  ?  or,  if  the  friends  of  a  more  liberal  and  catholic  policy 
were  to  repeat  such  acts  of  Muhlenberg  and  the  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania  a  century  and  a  third  ago,  would  they  not  be 
branded  as  unionistic,  or  wanting  in  loyalty  to  genuine  Lutheran- 
ism  ?  Were  not  complaints  presented  at  the  last  meeting  of  the 
General  Council  for  substantially  the  same  conduct  ?  Is  it  not  well 
known  that  there  is  a  sentiment  prevailing  in  some  quarters  utterly 
adverse  to  any  such  recognition  by  the  Lutheran  Church  of  other 
denominations  ?  There  can  be  no  difficulty,  we  think,  in  deter- 
mining on  which  side  Muhlenberg  and  his  co-laborers  are  to  be 
reckoned.  Right  or  wrong,  they  are  on  the  side  of  the  liberal  and 
tolerant  Lutheranism,  and  those  who  seek  to  claim  them  as  support- 
ers of  an  exclusive  and  illiberal  sectarianism  can  do  so  only  by 
ignoring  or  denying  the  plainest  and  best  authenticated  facts.  They 
were  sound,  conscientious,  decided  Lutherans — but  did  not  refuse 
to  recognize  in  a  practical  way  others  as  brethren  in  the  Lord 
and  brethren  in  the  ministry. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  SEISS,  D.  D.  {General  Con7tcil.) 
There  is  no  advantage  in  slurring  over  facts.  There  were  very 
great  favors  shown  by  the  Patriarch  Muhlenberg  and  his  associates, 
to  the  celebrated  Whitefield  while  in  Philadelphia.  He  had  invited 
that  eminent  minister  to  address  the  children  of  his  congregation, 
which  he  also  did  in  the  presence  of  Muhlenberg  and  the  Minis- 
terium of  Pennsylvania.  The  statement  of  the  personal  friendship 
and  mutual  regard  between  Muhlenberg  and  Rev.  Mr.  Peters  of  the 


DISCUSSION.  287 

Episcopal  Church,  did  not  give  the  whole  case.  It  is  a  matter  of 
record  that  during  the  solemnities  of  the  consecration  of  Zion 
Church,  in  this  city,  Rev.  Peters  was  invited  by  the  authorities  of 
said  church  to  occupy  the  pulpit,  and  to  preach  one  of  the  ser- 
mons. Rev.  Peters  not  only  accepted  the  invitation,  but  his  sermon 
was  requested  for  publication,  and  officially  given  to  the  public  in 
printed  form  by  the  officers  of  Zion  Church.  The  speaker  had 
himself  seen  and  read  a  copy  of  it.  If  not  mistaken  in  his  recol- 
lection, he  had  recently  also  read  a  note  of  these  facts  in  the  "Hal- 
lische  Nachrichten."  These  were  circumstances  of  some  moment, 
and  should  be  distinctly  brought  out  as  they  were.  ^ 

1  "Hallische  Nachrichten,"  p.  1 122  :  "  Oct.  15th,  the  clergy  and  deputies  to 
Synod  began  to  assemble.  In  the  afternoon  arrangements  were  made,  etc.,  and 
it  was  also  considered  whether  we  should  not  invite  Mr.  Whitefield,  and  the  two 
friendly  ministers  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  to  be  present  on  Monday  and 
Tuesday,  at  the  examination  of  the  children  of  the  Church.  In  the  evening, 
Dr.  Wrangel  and  I  called  on  Mr.  Whitefield  and  invitedJiivi  in  the  name  of  the 
Ministeriuni,  and  also  the  rector  of  the  High  (Episcopal)  Church,  who  was 
present  with  Mr.  Whitefield." 

Idem,  p.  1 128  :  "Oct.  i8th,  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning,  we  went  to  the 
church,  and  took  the  children  with  us.  By  degrees  the  following  named  per- 
sons arrived :  Duchee  and  Inglis,  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  Dr.  Finley,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Presbyterian  College  in  Jersey ;  the  Elder  Tennant,  a  Presbyterian 
minister  from  Newark;  also  Mr.  Whitefield,  and  a  large  number  of  English 
friends.  Mr.  Whitefield  ascended  the  pulpit,  made  a  powerful  prayer,  turned 
to  the  children,  and  made  a  discourse  about  the  pious  children  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  some  later  examples  in  his  own  experi- 
ence, and  then  spoke  to  parents  on  their  duties.  The  children  were  then 
examined  by  Dr.  Wrangel  and  myself,  and  we  closed  with  a  church  song.  The 
preachers  and  deputies  dined  in  the  school-house,  and  the  elder  Mr.  Tennant 
presided,  and  gratified  us  with  edifying  discourse.  After  dinner  the  Minister- 
ium  proceeded  with  its  business." 

Idem,  p.  850:  "On  the  9th  and  loth  of  August,  I  had  a  visit  in  Providence 
from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Richard  Peters.  In  the  morning  he  attended  our  German 
service,  and  expressed  himself  much  pleased,  and  in  the  afternoon  he  preached 
an  English  sermon,  very  sound  and  edifying,  to  a  large  audience." 

Idem,  p.  908:  "Friday,  the  2istof  May,  I  set  out  early  on  my  journey  to 
Philadelphia.  About  noon  I  reached  Mr.  R.,  who  joyfully  told  me,  how  yes- 
terday, Ascension  Day,  the  Rev.  Provost  Wrangel,  and  the  new  Swedish  min- 
ister, Mr.  Wicksel,  and  the  Reformed  minister,  Mr.  Slatter,  had  preached  in 
German  and  English  in  the  new  church,  to  large  congregations,  excellent  and 


288  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  C.  F.  WELDEN.  {General  Council.) 
The  invitation  to  Dr.  Peters  to  preach  in  Zion's  Church,  and  the 
special  recognition  of  the  sermon  by  the  corporation  of  the  Church, 
do  not  warrant  the  inference  either  of  indifference  to  pure  and 
wholesome  doctrine,  as  set  forth  in  our  confessions,  or  of  a  weak 
and  subservient  policy,  on  the  part  of  the  Fathers  of  our  Church  in 
America,  to  the  leading  denominations  around  them.  The  Dr. 
Peters  referred  to,  and  so  highly  respected  by  our  Fathers,  was 
then  a  rector,  not  of  the  modern  Protestant  Episcopal,  but  of  the 
Anglican  Protestant  Church,  under  the  colonial  government  of 
Great  Britain.  The  Anglican  Church  in  Pennsylvania,  under  the 
supremacy  of  the  Georges  of  Hanover,  assumed  and  professed  that 
there  existed  no  difference  between  it  and  the  Lutheran  Churches 
of  Germany,  of  Denmark,  and  of  Sweden,  save  the  differences  of 
nationality  and  language ;  and  this  profession  was  believed  and  ac- 
cepted by  our  Lutheran  Fathers.  The  Fathers  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America  cannot  therefore  be  chargeable  with  looseness  or 
inconsistency,  as  regards  the  standards  of  truth  confessed  and 
practiced  by  the  Lutheran  Church  ;  much  less  can  the  proceedings 
in  Zion's  German  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  on  the  occasion 

edifying  sermons.     I  arrived  in  Philadelphia   in  the  evening  at  6  o'clock,  hav- 
ing baptized  several  children  on  the  way." 

Idem,  pp.  1247-48:  In  the  account  of  the  consecration  of  Zion's  Church, 
which  occurred  on  the  occasion  of  the  meeting  of  the  Synod,  it  is  recorded, 
that  in  consideration  of  favors  received  from  the  English  Academy,  "  the 
Church  council  resolved  to  invite  the  Rev.  Richard  Peters,  commissioner  of  the 
High  (Episcopal)  Church  and  president  of  the  Academy,  who  had  always 
proved  himself  a  friend  of  the  Lutheran  preachers  and  congregations,  to  preach 
an  English  sermon  in  Zion's  Church  on  Monday,  June  26,  at  which  the  Gover- 
nor, the  whole  of  the  clergy  of  the  High  (Episcopal)  Church,  with  their  ves- 
tryman, etc.,  were  present  as  invited  guests.  Mr.  Duchee  opened  by  reading 
the  English  prayers,  the  Pro-rector  of  the  Academy  made  a  suitable  prayer  for 
the  occasion,  the  commissioner  Peters  delivered  an  excellent  sermon  on  the 
Angels'  Song,  Luke  ii.  In  conclusion  Mr.  Muhlenberg,  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, in  the  name  of  the  congregation,  thanked  the  honorable  assemblage  for 
their  friend  ship  and  good  will,  and  for  doing  the  newly-erected  church  the  honor 
to  conduct  a  service  in  it." 


DISCUSSION.  289 

referred  to,  be  construed  as  favoring  the  loose  and  almost  indiscrim- 
inate interchange  of  pulpits  with  divergent  denominations,  now 
prevalent  in  Protestant  sects. 

In  evidence  of  this,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  never  having  had 
a  resident  bishop  in  North  America,  this  branch  of  the  Anglican 
Church  becoming  widowed,  and  being  unable  to  maintain  her  or- 
ganization of  Episcopal  Government  without  a  bishop,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  rupture  with  the  mother  country,  looked  wistfully  to 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  Denmark  for  the  consecration  of  a  bishop 
for  the  United  States.  Further,  that  until  a  much  later  period  the 
same  professions  continued  to  be  made  on  the  part  of  Episcopalians, 
and  that  under  these  representations  all  of  the  Swedish  Lutheran 
Churches  of  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  have  become  absorbed  in 
what  has  now  come  to  be  the  modern  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States. 

DR.  KRAUTH'S  REMARKS  AND  NOTE. 

In  connection  with  Dr.  Seiss's  statement,  Dr.  Krauth  said  that 
he  was  entirely  familiar  with  the  general  facts  of  the  case,  and  that 
on  that  knowledge  he  based  and  repeated  his  assertion  that  there 
was  nothing  in  the  early  practice  of  our  fathers  in  this  country  fairly 
parallel  with  or  justifying  what  is  now  carried  on  under  the  name  of 
''Exchange  of  pulpits." 

In  explanation  of  his  meaning  he  would  here  add 
(/.)  That  the  relations  between  the  Lutheran  Church  and  the 
Churt:h  of  England  were  exceptional,  and  that  the  idea  prevailed 
upon  both  sides,  and  was  sustained  by  a  great  number  of  acts  on  the 
part  of  both,  that  the  two  churches  Avcre  in  fundamental  accord. 
The  conviction  was  general,  and  was  acted  on,  that  there  was  no 
difference  but  that  of  language.  Rev.  Peter  Muhlenberg  was  or- 
dained to  the  Lutheran  ministry,  by  an  English  Bishop.  Many 
things  showed— as  Prof.  Jacobs  has  demonstrated  by  his  Article 
read  before  the  Diet — that  our  Church  looked  to  a  probable  absorp- 
tion into  the  Episcopal,  as  it  passed  out  of  its  German  lite. 


290  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

(//.)  The  official  invitations  noted  in  the  "Hallische  Nachrichten" 
were  very  few,  were  confined  to  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  were  given  under  very  peculiar  circumstances.  The  very 
care  and  solemnity  of  the  invitations,  mark  the  fact  that  they  were  ex- 
ceptional. Whitefield  was  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England, 
in  some  respects  an  evangelist  of  forgotten  or  ignored  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  a  witness  excluded  from  many  pulpits  of  his  own  Church 
because  of  his  earnestness  in  preaching  the  truth,  in  some  sense  a 
martyr.  This  invested  him  with  interest  in  the  eyes  of  our  Fathers, 
and  his  love  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  his  services  to  it,  made 
him  very  dear.  Dr.  Peters,  a  clergyman  also  of  the  Church  of 
England,  had  shown  great  interest  in  our  Church,  and  had  aided 
it  with  his  influence  ;  the  service  which  he  held  was  the  Episco- 
pal service,  and  the  whole  occasion  one  in  which  the  English  com- 
munity had  an  opening  for  showing  its  interest  in  our  Church.  It 
was  no  case  of  "exchange  of  pulpits,"  between  denominations  re- 
garded as  antagonistic,  but  a  recognition  of  special  favors  granted 
and  of  special  love  shown  by  those  who  were  believed  to  differ  from 
us  in  little  but  language.  That  the  sermon  was  published  simply 
strengthens  this  view  of  the  case. 

(///.)  The  allowing  of  the  use  of  a  building,  when  Lutherans  did 
not  use  it,  at  a  period  especially  when  both  buildings  and  preach- 
ing were  rare,  to  those  who  had  helped  to  erect  it,  or  the  use  at  dif- 
ferent hours  of  the  day  of  the  pulpits  of  Union  churches,  does  not 
involve  the  prmciple  here  in  discussion. 

Despair  before  the  English  had  quite  as  much  to  do  as  obsti- 
nacy about  the  German,  with  some  of  the  most  fatal  experiences 
of  our  Church  in  America.  The  conviction  that  our  Church  dif- 
fered in  little  but  language  from  the  Episcopal,  that  it  needed  no 
future  in  English,  led,  as  it  became  Anglicized,  to  a  large  ab- 
sorption of  it  into  the  Episcopal  Church.  Had  there  been  no 
fresh  immigrations,  our  Church  would  have  been  lost  in  America. 
As  it  was,  the  honest  fallacy  about  the  two  Churches  robbed  us  of 


i 


I 


DISCUSSION.  291 

vitality  and  hope,  and  cost  us  hundreds  of  thousands  of  members. 
It  led  to  a  torpor  in  the  matter  of  language  on  the  English  side, 
which,  with  the  persistence  in  the  matter  of  language  on  the  Ger- 
man side,  would,  but  for  God's  gracious  providence,  have  left  us 
no  future  in  America.  It  swept  away  the  posterity  of  our  pilgrim 
fathers,  whose  toils  and  blood  had  been  designed  to  open  a  new 
home  for  the  Church  they  loved ;  it  took  away  our  churches ;  it 
obliterated  the  traces  of  one  of  our  noblest  nationalities,  and 
made  over  some  of  our  grandest  historic  treasures,  to  form  part 
of  the  theatrical  properties  of  the  so-called  "Swedish  (Episcopal) 
Churches."  We,  who  are  in  what  was  the  future  of  that  past, 
dare  not  read  back  into  it,  what  only  the  future  could  reveal, 
and  make  our  knowledge  a  ground  for  condemning  our  fathers. 
They  acted  in  the  light  of  their  own  time,  soberly  and  prayerfully ; 
and  it  is  an  insult,  without  excuse,  to  their  memory,  to  quote 
them  as  helping  to  support  that  loose,  sectarian  practice,  so  pop- 
ular in  our  land,  and  in  our  time,  under  the  name  of  "exchange 
of  pulpits." 
Adjourned. 


SIXTH    SESSION. 


December  28th,  1877,  7}^  p.  m. 
After  prayer  by  the  Rev.  F.  C.  C.  Kaehler,  of  Phoenixville,  Pa., 
at  the  request  of  the  author,  the  President  of  the  Diet  read  the  next 
paper. 

THE  DIVINE  AND  HUMAN  FACTORS  IN  THE  CALL 

TO  THE  MINISTERIAL  OFFICE.  ACCORDING  TO 

THE  OLDER  LUTHERAN  AUTHORITIES. 

BY   REV.  G.  DIEHL,  D.  D.,  FREDERICK,  MD. 

Augsburg  Confession,  Article  V.  "  For  the  obtaining  of  this  Faith,  the  min- 
istry of  teaching  the  Gospel,  and  the  administering  of  Sacraments,  was  insti- 
tuted." Augsburg  Confession,  Article  XIV.  "  Concerning  Ecclesiastical 
Orders  (Church  Government),  they  teach  that  no  man  should  publicly  in  the 
Church,  teach,  or  administer  the  Sacraments,  except  he  be  regularly  called 
(without  a  regular  call)." 

THE  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments  is  a  distinct  office 
in  the  Church,  instituted  by  God  Himself;  and  not  a  merely 
human  regulation. 

As  such  it  is  separate  from  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers. 
The  opponents  of  Luther  charged  him  with  teaching  in  his  writings, 
on  the  priesthood  of  believers,  that  all  Christians  had  a  commission 
publicly  to  teach  the  Gospel ;  and  thus  doing  away  with  the  minis- 
terial office.  In  entering  on  our  subject,  it  may  contribute  to  a 
clearer  view  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  pastoral  office, 
to  define  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers. 

The  passages  bearing  most  directly  on  this  point,  are,  i  Peter  ii.  9, 
"Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a 
peculiar  people  ;  that  ye  should  show  forth  the  praises  of  Him  who 
hath  called  you  out  of  darkness  into  His  marvellous  light,"  and 
Rev.  i.  5,  6,  "Unto  Him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  His  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto 
God  and  His  Father ;  to  Him  be  glory  and  dominion  forever  and 
ever.     Amen."  / 

'^  (  292  ) 


DR.  DIEIILS    ESSAY.  293 

Taking  the  term  priesthood  to  indicate  the  teaching  of  divine 
truth,  and  the  offering  of  sacrifices — its  usual  sense — there  is  no 
difficulty  in  its  application  to  all  believers.  Christians  are  commis- 
sioned and  required  to  impart  religious  instruction  to  those  around 
them,  and  to  offer  spiritual  sacrifices  to  God.  Every  pious  man  is 
to  teach  in  his  own  house  the  Word  of  God  to  his  children,  accord- 
ing to  the  divine  command,  given  by  Moses  (Deut.  vi.  7),  "Thou 
shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  tliy  children."  The  apostle  says 
(i  Peter  ii.  5),  "  Ye  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priest- 
hood, to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus 
Christ." 

These  sacrifices  consist  in  prayer,  thanksgiving,  beneficence,  the 
devotion  of  the  entire  person  to  Christ  with  the  crucifixion  of  our 
evil  nature,  and  the  offering  up  of  life  in  martyrdom. 

That  prayer  is,  in  the  scriptural  sense,  a  spiritual  sacrifice,  is 
evident  from  such  declarations  as  (Ps.  cxli.  2)  "Let  my  prayer  be 
set  forth  before  Thee  as  incense,  and  the  lifting  up  of  my  hands  as 
the  evening  sacrifice;"  (Rev.  v.  8)  "Golden  vials  full  of  odors, 
which  are  the  prayers  of  saints;"  (Rev.  viii.  4)  "And  the  smoke 
of  the  incense,  which  came  with  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  ascended 
up  before  God  out  of  the  angel's  hand." 

Thanksgiving  is  set  down  among  spiritual  sacrifices  in  Heb.  xiii. 
15,  "By  him,  therefore,  let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God 
continually,  the  fruit  of  our  lips,  giving  thanks  to  His  name."  Be- 
neficence is  so  represented  in  Phil.  iv.  18,  "lam  full,  having  re- 
ceived the  things  which  were  sent  by  you,  an  odor  of  a  sweet 
smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing  to  God."  Again  in 
Heb.  xiii.  16,  "  But  to  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget  not; 
for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased."  The  devotion  of 
the  energies  of  the  entire  person  with  the  crucifixion  of  the  body 
of  sin  is  represented  as  a  spiritual  offering  by  Paul  in  Rom.  xii.  i 
"Present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  unto  God, 
which  is  your  reasonable  service."  And  the  confession  of  Christ 
in  martyrdom  is  so  viewed  by  the  apostle  in  Phil.  ii.  17,  "If  I  be 
offered  upon  the  sacrifice  of  your  faith;"  and  in  2  Tim.  iv.  6,  "I 
am  now  ready  to  be  offered."  Thus  all  true  Christians  are  spirit- 
ual priests,  offering  the  spiritual  sacrifices  of  praise,  prayers  and 
holy  living. 

Augustine  in  commenting  on  Psalm  xciv.,  says:    "If  we  are  the 


294  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

temple  of  God,  our  souls  are  the  altar  of  God.  What  is  the  sac- 
rifice?    We  lay  the  offering  on  the  altar  when  we  praise  God." 

In  addition  to  teaching  the  truths  of  religion  in  conversa- 
tions with  neighbors,  and  in  family  instruction,  the  offerings  of 
prayer,  thanksgiving,  alms-deeds,  the  devotion  of  all  talents  and 
energies  to  the  divine  service,  and  the  confessing  of  Christ  in  mar- 
tyrdom, there  is  on  the  part  of  all  believers,  who  through  baptism 
have  been  brought  into  covenant  relations  with  God  and  sacramen- 
tally  sealed,  a  capacity,  capability,  or  eligibility  (fiihigkeit,  Luther 
calls  it),  to  the  pastoral  office.  But  this  eligibility  gives  no  author- 
ity to  discharge  the  functions  of  the  office  until  one  is  regularly 
called  of  God  and  invested  with  the  ministry  by  the  Church.  As 
the  eligibility  of  all  native-born  male  citizens  of  the  United  States 
over  forty  years  of  age  to  the  office  of  President  guaranteed  by 
the  constitution,  gives  no  American  the  right  to  the  honor  and 
power  of  that  office,  unless  elected  to  the  same  by  the  people,  so 
the  "fiihigkeit"  of  all  baptized  believers  contended  for  by  Luther, 
gives  to  no  one  a  commission  to  teach  publicly  in  the  assemblies  of 
God's  people  and  administer  the  Sacraments,  unless  he  be  also 
called  of  God  and  chosen  by  the  Church. 

That  the  public  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  administering 
of  the  Sacraments  is  not  entrusted  to  all  pious  members  of  the 
Church  is  manifest  from  the  words  of  the  apostle,  "  Are  all  apos- 
tles?   Are  (z// prophets ?     Are  ^// teachers ?"     (i  Cor.  xii.  29,") 

We  must  ever  distinguish  between  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and 
Sacraments,  and  the  universal  commission  which  all  the  pious  re- 
ceive in  their  admission  to  the  communion  of  the  Church,  by  which 
it  is  demanded  that  they  should  bring  to  God  the  devotion  of  their 
persons  and  the  offerings  of  worship ;  to  take  care  the  Word  of  God 
dwell  richly  among  them  (Col.  iii.  16);  that  they  teach  and  ad- 
monish one  another  in  psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  with  grace 
in  their  hearts  to  the  Lord  (Eph.  v.  19);  and  that  they  comfort 
one  another  with  these  words  (i  Thes.  iv.  18).  The  one  is  a  spe- 
cific office  ordained  of  God.  The  other  is  a  universal  privilege 
and  duty.  To  the  one  certain  persons  are  regularly  called  and 
formally  invested.  The  other  is  the  common  right  and  obligation 
of  all  Christians. 


DR.  DIEHL  S    ESSAY.  295 

The  Divine  Factor  in  Conferring  the  Office. 

As  God  Himself  has  ordained  a  specific  office  for  the  preaching 
of  His  word  and  the  administration  of  His  Sacraments,  so  He  calls 
those  who  are  to  be  entrusted  with  the  commission. 

Jehovah  Himself  at  first  discharged  the  functions  of  religious 
teacher,  when  He  proclaimed  to  Adam  and  Eve  the  law  forbidding 
them  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  (Gen. 
ii.  17),  and  when  He  proclaimed  the  promise  of  salvation  to  the 
disconsolate  spirits  of  that  fallen  pair,  in  the  prediction  that  the 
seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head  (Gen.  iii.  15). 

He  then  transferred  the  teaching  office  to  men ;  to  Adam  first, 
and  then  to  the  patriarchs.  These  were  the  teachers  and  priests  of 
the  Church  when  the  Church  was  confined  to  a  single  household,  to 
a  tribe,  or  to  several  tribes.  He  afterwards  called  Moses  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry ;  and  ordained  the  Aaronic  and  Levitical 
priesthood,  through  which,  for  many  centuries,  under  the  old  cove- 
nant. He  perpetuated  the  sacred  office.  Under  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation He  sent  also  many  prophets,  each  one  receiving  his  call  and 
commission  directly  from  heaven. 

In  ushering  in  the  New  Dispensation  this  great  office  devolved 
upon  the  eternal  Son.  "God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath 
in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His  Son,  whom  He  hath 
appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  He  made  the  worlds" 
(Heb,  i.  I,  2);  Christ  the  Eternal  Word  (John  i.  i);  the  Light 
of  the  World  (John  viii.  12);  the  Way,  the  Truth  and  the  Life  (John 
xiv.  6);.  the  Prophet  promised,  when  the  Father  said,  "I  will  put 
my  words  in  His  mouth,  and  He  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall 
command"  (Deut.  xviii.  18,  19);  to  Whom  Peter  said,  "  Lord,  to 
whom  shall  we  go?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life"  (John 
vi.  dZ,  69) ;  Christ  the  Eternal  Word,  for  the  space  of  three 
years,  discharged  the  functions  of  the  holy  ministry,  as  it  had  never 
been  before,  and  has  not  since.  "  Never  man  spake  like  this  man" 
(John  vii.  46). 

The  twelve  apostles  and  the  seventy  who  were  sent  forth  to  teach, 
(Matt.  X  )  were  selected  by  Christ  Himself  through  a  special,  distinct 
and  personal  call.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  fulfillment  of  the 
promise  that  shepherds  and  teachers  should  be  given  to  the  New 
Testament  Church:   "The  Lord  gave  the  word;  great   was  the 


296  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

company  of  those  that  pubHshed  it  "  (Ps.  Ixviii.  11)  ;  "  And  I  will 
give  you  pastors  according  to  Mine  heart,  which  shall  feed  you  with 
knowledge  and  understanding"  (Jer.  iii.   15). 

When  Christ  commissioned  the  apostles  and  their  successors  He 
said  :  "  All  power  is  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go 
ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  (Matt, 
xxviii.  18-20). 

That  ministers  are  called  into  the  sacred  office  and  clothed  with 
pastoral  functions  by  God  is  affirmed  by  the  apostles.  "  God  hath 
set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets, 
thirdly  teachers,  after  that  miracles ;  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps, 
governments,  diversities  of  tongues"  (i  Cor.  xii.  28).  God  hath 
given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  (2  Cor.  v.  18).  "And 
He  gave  some,  apostles;  and  some,  prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists; 
and  some,  pastors  and  teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ : 
till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature 
of  the  fullness  of  Christ"  (Eph.  iv.  11,  13). 

From  these  passages  it  is  clear  that  the  commission  comes  from 
Christ.  The  message  to  be  delivered  is  His.  The  overture  to  be 
made  by  these  ambassadors  is  His  ;  and  He  selects  the  agents  or  in- 
struments by  whom  his  law  is  to  be  explained.  His  ordinances  ad- 
ministered and  His  redemption  offered  to  men. 

The  fact  that  the  public  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion  are 
directly  called  and  commissioned  from  heaven,  is  set  forth  in  those 
parables  of  the  Saviour  which  describe  the  work  of  the  servants  of 
the  Great  Householder — the  royal  Lord  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
In  the  parable  of  the  tares,  the  Lord  commanded  the  servants  not 
"  to  gather  up  the  tares,"  lest  they  "  root  up  also  the  wheat  with 
them"  (Matt.  xiii.  29).  The  commission  here  is  directly  from  the 
Master.  In  the  parable  of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard,  the  Lord  of 
the  vineyard  went  out  early  in  the  morning,  and  repeatedly  at 
different  hours,  "  to  hire  laborers  into  his  vineyard"  (Matt  xx.  i). 
This  call  was  personal,  distinct,  special.  In  the  parable  of  the 
Great  Householder,  who  let  out  to  husbandmen  his  vineyard, 
planted  and  hedged,  with  its  tower  and  winepress,  it  was  the  Lord 


DR.  DIEHLS    ESSAY.  297 

who  sent  his  servants  to  receive  a  rental  of  fruit  from  the  tenants. 
The  agents  were  selected,  commissioned,  and  sent  by  the  Proprietor. 
(Matt.  xxi.  33-37.)  In  the  parable  of  the  fruitless  fig  tree,  the 
dresser  of  the  vineyard  is  clothed  with  the  authority  and  functions 
of  his  office  immediately  by  the  Lord.   (Lukexiii.  6-8.) 

That  ministers  are  called  of  God  and  equipped  from  above,  is 
implied  in  the  exhortation  of  the  Saviour  to  His  followers  to  pray 
for  them.  "Pray  ye,  therefore,  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  that  he 
will  send  forth  laborers  into  his  harvest"  (Matt.  ix.  38). 

We  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  when  the  first  ministers, 
after  those  selected  by  Christ  Himself,  were  to  be  chosen  in  the 
Christian  Church,  the  assembled  congregation  besought  the  Lord 
to  guide  them  in  making  the  selection,  thus  recognizing  the  neces- 
sity of  a  call  from  above  to  the  investiture  of  a  genuine  minister. 
In  filling  the  vacancy  in  the  apostolic  college  caused  by  the  apos- 
tasy of  Judas,  the  Church  "prayed,  and  said,  Thou  Lord  which 
knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  show  us  whether  of  these  two  Thou 
hast  chosen,  that  he  may  take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apostle- 
ship"  (Acts  i.  24,  25).  To  ascertain  the  divine  choice  "they 
gave  forth  their  lots  :  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Matthias."  The  divine 
response  to  the  prayer  was  unmistakable.  The  call  of  the  Apostle 
Paul  was  still  more  strikingly  from  the  Master.  It  was  by  an  audi- 
ble voice,  in  a  direct  personal  address,  amid  supernatural  appear- 
ances and  a  distinct  announcement  that  the  One  who  spoke  and 
called  His  servant  into  the  ministry  was  Christ  the  Lord. 

This  truth  that  men  can  be  scripturally  invested  with  the  minis- 
terial office  only  by  God  and  Christ  is  distinctly  and  forcibly  stated 
by  the  recognized  early  Lutheran  authorities .  It  is  taught  at  least 
by  implication  in  the  Smalcald  Articles.  Luther  says:  "At  first 
the  apostles  were  chosen,  not  through  human  instrumentality,  but 
directly  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God.  Others  were  called  into  the  pas- 
toral office  by  God,  but  through  men"  (Kirchenpost,  St.  Andrew's 
day).  Again:  "I  hope  that  all  believers,  and  all  who  call  them- 
selves Christians,  will  certainly  know  that  the  ministerial  state  was 
instituted  and  established  by  God"  (Sermon  on  educating  chil- 
dren). Again :  "  The  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  a  human  statute, 
but  God  makes  and  ordains  ministers,  and  it  is  not  the  priest 
(pfarrherr)  who  absolves  thee,  but  the  mouth  and  hand  of  the  min- 
ister is  the  mouth  and  hand  of  God"  (Com.  Gen.  xxviii.  17).  By 
20 


298  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

laying  on  of  hands,  Luther  here  evidently  means  investing  a  man 
with  the  holy  office.  He  elsewhere  says  repeatedly,  that  the  laying 
on  of  hands  is  merely  a  Church  usage  and  not  indispensable  to  or- 
dination. For  instance,  "  while  the  ceremony  of  laying  on  of 
hands  is  something  (impressive  and  proper),  it  is  only  a  customary 
usage  to  call  persons  into  the  ministry  of  the  Church."  In  saying, 
therefore,  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  a  human  statute  (men- 
schensatzung),  he  merely  affirms  the  divine  institution  and  ordina- 
tion of  the  ministry;  the  ceremony  uniformly  practiced,  although 
not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  office,  being  substituted,  by  a 
figure  of  speech,  for  the  creation  of  the  office  itself.  Again  Luther 
says,  after  quoting  Titus  i.  5-7,  "Whoever  believes  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  here  speaks  through  Paul,  must  know  that  this  is  a  divine 
appointment  and  ordinance,  that  in  every  city  or  town,  there  should 
be  one  or  more  pastors"  (Disc,  on  Abuses  of  the  Mass,  1522). 
Chemnitz  says  :  "That  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments 
was  instituted  by  the  Son  of  God,  is  established  beyond  doubt. 
This  is  evident  from  the  promise  that  God  would  approve  the  ap- 
pointment of  those  who  are  called  through  the  voice  of  the  Church; 
being  made  overseers  over  the  flock  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  xx. 
28);  and  from  the  promise  that  God  would  bestow  His  grace  and 
gifts  to  those  called,  whereby  they  should  be  able  righty  to  fulfill 
the  functions  of  the  office ;  breathing  upon  them  the  Holy  Ghost 
(John  XX.  22);  giving  them  understanding  of  the  Scripture;  abid- 
ing with  them  (Matt,  xxviii.  20);  giving  them  mouth  and  wisdom 
(Luke  xxi.  15);  the  spirit  of  the  Father  speaking  through  them 
(Matt.  x.  19,  20).  It  is  proven  also  by  the  promise  that  increase 
shall  be  given  to  the  planting  and  watering  by  pastors,  which  will 
result  in  the  calling  and  enlightening,  the  repentance  and  faith,  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  the  believers." 

In  perfect  accord  with  these  statements  are  the  declarations  of 
Gerhard  and  others.  On  this  point  the  testimony  of  Lutheran  the- 
ologians is  uniform.     Not  a  dissenting  voice  is  heard. 

The  divine  agency  in  the  calling  of  men  is  thus  so  fully  set  forth 
in  Scripture  and  so  distinctly  recognized  in  the  standard  authorities 
of  the  Church,  that  we  can  appreciate  the  force  of  the  language 
when  God  in  addressing  the  incumbents  of  the  sacred  office  says, 
"I  have  given  the  priest's  office  unto  you,  as  a  gift  of  the  Lord  to 
-do  service"  (Num.  xviii.  6).     Not  only  is  the  office  given  but  the 


DR.  DIEIILS    ESSAY.  299 

men  are  chosen.  "  He  separated  the  tribe  of  Levi  to  bear  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  and  to  stand  before  Him  and  minister 
unto  Him."  To  the  prophet  He  said,  "  I  have  made  thee  a  watch- 
man unto  Israel,  therefore  hear  the  word  at  My  mouth  and  give 
them  warning."  "  Thou  shalt  stand  before  Me.  And  if  thou  take 
forth  the  precious  from  the  vile,  thou  shalt  be  as  My  mouth.  And 
I  will  make  thee  unto  this  people  a  fenced  brasen  wall.  For  I  am 
with  thee  to  save  thee  and  to  deliver  thee,  saith  the  Lord"  (Jer.  xv. 
19-20).  "  I  have  set  watchmen  upon  thy  walls,  O  Jerusalem,  which 
shall  never  hold  their  peace"  (Isa.  Ixii.  6).  "I  have  ordained  thee 
a  prophet  unto  the  nations"  (Jer.  i.  5).  In  the  intercession  with 
which  the  Saviour  closed  His  ministry  on  the  earth.  He  said,  "  As 
thou  hast  sent  Me,  so  have  I  also  sent  them  into  the  world"  (John 
xvii.  18).  He  said  also  to  His  ministers,  "I  have  chosen  you." 
And  the  great  Apostle  said,  "  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us  as  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God"  (i  Cor. 
iv.  i).  "No  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself  but  he  that  is 
called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron"  (Heb.  v.  4). 

The  language  of  the  poet  is  not  therefore  extravagant : 

"  He  alone  his  office  holds 
Immediately  from  God ;  from  God  receives 
Authority,  and  is  to  none  but  God 
Amenable  *  *  *  his  call, 
His  consecration,  his  anointing,  all 
Are  inward  ;  in  the  conscience  heard  and  felt, 
Thus  by  Jehovah  chosen  and  ordained, 
To  take  into  his  charge  the  souls  of  men  ; 
And  for  his  trust  to  answer  at  the  day 
Of  Judgment — great  plenipotent  of  Heaven 
And  representative  of  God  on  earth. 
*  *  *  Burning  with  love  to  souls 
Unquenchable,  and  mindful  still  of  his 
Great  charge  and  vast  responsibility, 
High  in  the  temple  of  the  living  God, 
He  stands  amidst  the  people  and  declares 
Aloud  the  truth,  the  whole  revealed  truth, 
Ready  to  seal  it  with  his  blood." 

T/ie  Hitman  Factor. 
The  divine  agency  in  investing  men  with  the  sacred  office,  since 
the  age  of  miracles  is  past,  although  as  real,  is  not  so  immediate  and 
direct  as  it  was  in  the  call  of  the  prophets.     The  manner  and  cir- 


300  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

cumstances  are  different  now.  No  angelic  appearance  in  the  flame ; 
no  burning  bush ;  no  heavenly  voice  from  the  midst  of  the  flame 
of  fire,  calling  the  subject  by  name;  no  audible  utterance,  "thou 
shalt  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto  you" 
(Ex.  iii.  1 4)  ;  not  as  Moses  was  called  ;  not  as  Paul  was  ;  not  as 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  and  Elijah.  God  does 
not  now  speak  in  audible  sounds  to  those  who  are  called.  He  does 
not  call  them  by  name.  He  employs  no  miraculous  circumstances. 
There  is  no  communication  by  angels;  no  supernatural  visions;  no 
heaven-inspired  dreams  by  which  men  are  clearly  informed  of  the 
divine  vocation.  They  are  called  and  clothed  with  the  functions  of 
the  ministry  by  other  means.  The  call  comes  from  heaven  but  it 
must  be  recognized  by  the  Church.  By  the  Divine  Spirit  the 
Church  is  moved  to  ratify  the  work  of  heaven.  The  Church  in  the 
organization  of  a  single  congregation,  or  in  an  association  of  indi- 
vidual congregations,  in  a  Synod,  Council  or  Conference,  must 
consent  to  clothe  the  candidate  with  ministerial  functions.  The 
flock  must  call  him  before  he  can  feed  the  flock. 

In  the  human  portion  of  the  work  there  are  two  parties.  It  is 
not  supposable  that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  work  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  the  members  of  a  Church,  that  a  particular  person  is 
divinely  called  to  preach  the  Gospel  without  operating  at  the  same 
time  upon  the  mind  of  the  subject  of  that  call,  producing  a  similar 
conviction  that  he  is  designated  by  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church 
to  be  a  religious  teacher.  The  same  divine  agent  that  called  the 
prophets  in  ways  so  manifest,  and  by  speech  so  distinct,  as  to  pro- 
duce absolute  certainty  in  their  convictions,  does  now,  in  ways  less 
marvellous,  and  circumstances  less  imposing,  produce  a  similar  con- 
viction in  the  mind  of  every  man  whose  ministry  heaven  has 
authenticated. 

The  instrument  employed  by  the  spirit  of  God  in  the  calling 
ministers,  as  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  is  the  truth.  Some 
portion  of  divine  truth,  or  some  aspects  of  the  great  Christian  sys- 
tem, are  vividly  impressed  on  the  soul.  It  may  be  that  the  youth 
who  is  about  to  be  divinely  invested  with  the  high  functions  of  the 
holy  office,  is  led  by  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit  to  view  the  great 
harvest  field,  ripe  for  the  sickle,  and  an  overpowering  impression 
rests  on  his  soul  that  he  should  enter  as  one  of  the  reapers.  He 
may  have  so  vivid  a  view  of  the  millions  who  are  perishing  for  lack 


DR.  DIEIILS    ESSAY,  3OI 

of  knowledge,  as  to  lead  him  to  the  resolution  to  become  to  some 
of  those  millions  a  religious  guide.  The  truth  impressed  by  the 
divine  spirit  on  the  mind  may  be  the  value  of  the  soul ; — honors, 
riches,  power,  all  the  treasures  of  earth,  are  nothing  in  comparison, 
and  the  young  man  is  moved  by  that  consideration  to  devote  his  life 
and  energies  to  the  work  of  saving  souls.  In  looking  at  Gethsemane 
and  Calvary,  his  mind  may  be  so  illumined  as  to  see  something  of 
that  unspeakable  love  and  mercy,  until  all  his  faculties  are  moved, 
his  heart  melted,  his  soul  roused,  and  the  resolution  rises  up  to 
spend  all  his  energies  in  proclaiming  a  Saviour's  love.  Whatever 
portion  of  truth,  or  whatever  aspect  of  it,  is  employed  by  God  as 
the  instrument  of  the  illumination,  the  conviction  and  the  resolu- 
tion, it  is  in  this  way  that  men  are  called.  It  is  by  a  voice  in  the 
soul.  God  speaks ;  but  it  is  to  the  inner  spirit.  It  is  a  direct 
transaction  between  Christ  and  a  redeemed  man. 

But  when  the  candidate  for  holy  orders  gives  expression  to  his 
convictions,  and  announces  to  others  his  inner  call,  the  Church 
must  be  satisfied  that  there  is  no  delusion  in  his  mind ;  that  it  is  not 
a  fanatical  impulse  or  transient  emotion ;  that  it  is  not  the  prompt- 
ings of  selfish  ambition  ;  but  that  the  call  is  genuine,  that  it  is  a 
voice  from  heaven  The  motives  prompting  the  youth  to  make 
apphcation  for  ordination  must  be  inquired  into,  and  the  character 
of  the  feelings  he  has  expressed.  Other  things  must  also  be  learned 
with  reference  to  his  fitness  for  the  office.  Has  he  the  essential 
qualifications?  Is  he  really  pious?  Has  he  good  sense,  sound 
judgment,  correct  taste?  Is  he  possessed  of  gentlemanly  instincts 
and  a  high  sense  of  honor?  Is  l>e  gifted  with  intellect  and  power 
of  emotion  ?  Has  he  the  requisite  physical  constitution  and  a  good 
personal  presence  ?  Has  he  voice  and  elocution  ?  Has  he  mental 
training  and  stores  of  knowledge  ?  Has  he  sobriety  of  character 
and  dignity  of  demeanor  ?  Has  he  such  social  qualities  as  will  fit 
him  for  pastoral  relations  and  pastoral  work  ? 

The  investigation  and  decision  of  these  questions  is  a  part  of 
the  Church's  work.  In  no  service  should  the  Church  more  fer- 
vently implore  the  divine  guidance,  than  in  deciding  the  question, 
whether  an  applicant  for  ministerial  authority  has  been  called  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  preach  the  Gospel.  A  satisfactory  conclusion 
having  been  reached  that  the  candidate  has  the  higher  spiritual  and 
divine  credentials,  his  own  deep  impressions  being  corroborated  by 


b 


302  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  possession  of  the  essential  quahfications  for  the  office,  the 
Church  has  a  divine  commission  to  invest  him  with  ministerial 
functions. 

This  authority  is  involved  in  the  Church's  spiritual  priesthood, 
and  in  the  possession  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
(Matt.  xvi.  19,  20.) 

The  Smalcald  Articles  teach,  ''The  keys  are  an  office  and  power 
of  the  Church  given  by  Christ  to  bind  and  to  loose  sins,  not  only 
enormous  and  manifest,  but  also  subtle  and  secret  sins."     Art.  VII. 

"For  wherever  the  Church  is,  there  indeed  is  the  command  to 
preach  the  Gospel.  For  this  reason  the  churches  must  retain  the 
authority  to  call,  to  elect  and  ordain  ministers.  And  this  authority 
is  a  privilege  which  God  has  given  especially  to  the  Church  ;  and 
it  cannot  be  taken  away  from  the  Church  by  any  human  power,  as 
Paul  testifies  (Eph.  iv.  8,  11,  12),  "When  He  ascended  up  on  high, 
He  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men."  And  among 
these  gifts,  which  belong  to  the  Church,  he  enumerates  pastors  and 
teachers;  and  adds  that  these  were  given  for  the  edifying  of  the 
Church.  Wherefore  it  follows  that  wherever  there  is  a  true  Church 
there  is  also  the  power  to  elect  and  ordain  ministers."  "To  this 
point  the  declarations  of  Christ  pertain,  which  show  that  the  keys 
were  given  to  the  whole  Church,  and  not  to  some  particular  persons ; 
as  the  Scripture  saith,  'Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
My  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them'  (Matt,  xviii.  20)." 

"Finally  this  is  also  confirmed  by  the  declaration  of  Peter,  'Ye 
are  a  royal  priesthood"  (i  Peter  ii.  9).  These  words  relate 
specially  to  the  true  Church,  which,  because  it  alone  has  the  priest- 
hood, must  also  have  the  power  to  choose  and  ordain  ministers." 

"The  common  usages  of  the  Church  likewise  prove  this;  for  in 
former  times  the  people  elected  clergymen  and  bishops ;  then  the 
bishops  living  in  or  near  the  same  place  came  and  confirmed  the 
elected  bishop,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands;  and  at  that  time,  the 
ordination  was  nothing  else  but  this  approbation."  (Appendix 
to  Smalcald  Articles.) 

Melanchthon  says :  "God  instituted  and  commanded  the  pas- 
toral office,  and  annexed  to  it  glorious  promises ;  '  The  Gospel  is 
the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  all  that  believe'  (Rom.  i.  16). 
'  My  word  that  goeth  forth  out  of  my  mouth  shall  not  return  unto 
me  void,  but  shall  accomplish  that  which  I  please'  "  (Isaiah  Iv.  it). 


DR.  DIEHL'S   essay.  303 

"The  Church  has  the  command  of  God  to  appoint  preachers  and 
deacons.  While  this  is  very  precious,  we  know  that  God  will  preach 
and  work  through  mjn,  and  those  who  have  been  elected  by  man" 
(Apol.,  Art.  13). 

The  Augsburg  Confession  says,  "This  power  of  the  keys  is  put 
in  execution  only  by  teaching  or  preaching  the  Gospel,  and  admin- 
istering the  Sacraments,  either  to  many  or  to  single  individuals,  in 
accordance  with  their  call ;  for  thereby  not  only  corporal  things, 
but  eternal,  are  granted,  as  an  eternal  righteousness,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
life  everlasting.  These  things  cannot  be  got  but  by  the  ministry  of 
the  Word  and  the  Sacraments"  (Art.  28). 

Luther  says,  "It  is  God's  will  that  we  go  and  hear  the  Gospel 
from  those  who  preach  it." 

Chemnitz  says,  "It  is  true  that  God  begins,  works,  increases  and 
carries  forward,  by  His  power,  operation,  incitement,  and  inspira- 
tion, whatever  appertains  to  calling,  enlightening,  conversion, 
repentance,  faith,  renewal,  in  short,  whatever  belongs  to  the  work 
of  our  salvation ;  but  God  had  determined,  according  to  His 
declared  counsel,  that  He  will  accomplish  this,  not  by  the  infusion 
of  new  and  special  revelations,  enlightenments  and  movements 
(tractatibus)  in  the  souls  of  men,  without  the  use  of  means,  but 
through  the  external  ministry  of  the  Word.  This  office,  however. 
He  did  not  entrust  to  angels,  that  the  appearance  of  them  should 
be  sought  and  expected  ;  but  to  men  did  He  commit  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation  ;  and  He  wills  that  through  these  ministers  the  voice 
of  the  Gospel  shall  be  sounded.  Not  every  believer  is  allowed  to 
take  upon  himself  the  office  of  publicly  preaching  the  Word  and 
administering  the  Sacraments,  but  only  those  who  have  received 
from  God  a  genuine  call ;  and  this  occurs  either  immediately  or 
through  means.  And  the  right  and  authentic  way  of  such  a  divine 
call  is  by  the  voice  of  the  Church." 

The  investing  of  men  with  the  functions  of  the  ministerial  office, 
is  clearly  entrusted  by  God  to  the  Church.  To  the  full  constitution 
of  the  Church  there  must  be  pastors  as  well  as  a  flock,  for  the 
Gospel  must  be  preached  ami  the  Sacraments  administered.  The 
Church,  necessarily,  whether  by  the  ministry  alone,  or  by  the  com- 
bined action  of  clergy  and  laity,  must  perpetuate  the  sacred  office, 
by  calling,  electing,  and  ordaining  those  who  are  publicly  to  teach 
the   Word   and   administer   the    Sacraments.      The   procedure    of 


304  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

calling  tlie  first  minister  by  the  Churcb,  is  stated  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  In  the  choice  of  Matthias  to  the  high  office  of  the 
apostleship,  not  only  the  eleven  ,  but  the  whole  multitude  of  assem- 
bled disciples  took  part.  It  would  be  a  violeut  and  unauthorized 
construction  to  assume  that  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  were  all 
ministers  (Acts  i.  15-26).  The  choice,  however,  was  not  definite. 
They  appointed  two  men,  and  then  invoked  God  to  decide  by  lot 
which  of  the  two  He  had  chosen.  When,  at  the  suggestion  of  Peter, 
deacons  were  chosen,  the  election  was  made  by  the  whole  multitude 
of  disciples  (Acts  vi.  1-6).  But  there  remains  a  question  to  be 
settled  as  to  the  office  then  instituted,  whether  its  functions  were 
limited  to  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  or  embraced  the  com- 
mission which  at  least  two  of  them,  Stephen  and  Philip,  afterwards 
executed,  in  preaching  and  baptizing.  Luther  says,  "A  whole 
congregation  or  church  shall  have  power  to  elect  and  install 
a  pastor." 

While  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  "  ordained 
them  elders  in  every  church"  (Acts  xiv :  23)  planted  in  their  first 
missionary  tour,  we  are  not  informed  as  to  the  part  taken  in  the 
choice  of  the  persons  to  be  made  pastors,  by  the  people.  Some 
maintain  that  the  great  apostle  and  his  missionary  fellow-laborer, 
regulated  this  according  to  their  own  judgment.  Others  affirm  that 
we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  the  congregation  did  not  in  every 
case  acquiesce,  and  virtually  elect  their  religious  instructors  by  de- 
signating the  men  to  be  ordained.  Where  Scripture  is  silent,  it  is  as 
easy  to  affirm  one  thing  as  the  other.  It  is  impossible  to  decide, 
beyond  all  doubt,  in  the  absence  of  Scripture  statements,  whether 
the  people  did  or  did  not  take  part.  The  early  Lutheran  authorities, 
however,  have  very  generally  maintained  that  the  congregations 
did  either  indicate  or  endorse  the  selections  made  by  the  Apostles. 
It  can  scarcely  be  questioned  that  the  people  gave  at  least  tacit  ac- 
quiescence. Even  if  the  apostles  did,  under  the  authority  and 
wisdom  of  their  higher  inspiration,  regulate  exclusively  the  choice 
of  pastors  for  the  newly-organized  churches,  this  would  not  settle 
the  question  as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  after  apostolic  times, 
when  special  inspiration  was  no  longer  vouchsafed  to  the  ministry. 

John  Wigand  says,  "The  Church  in  every  place,  that  is,  the 
whole  assembly,  both  laity  and  clergy,  jointly  have  the  power  to 
elect  suitable  ministers,  to  call  and  ordain  them ;  also  to  expel  and 


DR.  DIEHLS    ESSAY.  3O5 

depose  false  teachers,  and  those  who  by  scandalous  and  immoral 
lives  would  injure  the  cause  of  piety." 

The  Wittenberg  theologians  say,  "  We  do  not  say  that  the 
Romish  method  of  calling  pastors  is  in  every  particular  wrong,  in 
that  the  bishops  ordain  ministers ;  but  we  cannot  approve  their 
course  in  placing  pastors  over  churches  without  the  knowledge  or 
consent  of  the  p2ople,  because  according  to  the  old  saying  (aussage) 
'  The  calling  of  a  pastor,  without  the  consent  of  the  people,  is  null 
and  void.' " 

Chemnitz  says :  "  Here  it  may  be  asked,  who  are  they  by  whose 
voice  the  sanction  and  call  of  ministers  is  to  take  place,  so  that  it 
may  be  regarded  a  divine  appointment,  that  is,  that  God  by  that 
instrument  is  calling  and  sending  the  laborers  into  His  harvest  ? 
For  deciding  this  point  we  find  certain  clear  examples  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. When  an  apostle  was  to  be  chosen  in  place  of  Judas,  Peter 
laid  the  matter  not  before  the  apostles  alone,  but  before  all  the  assem- 
bled disciples,  the  number  being  one  hundred  and  twenty.  (Acts  i. 
15.)  He  showed  from  the  Scriptures  how  such  a  choice  was  to  be 
made,  and  from  among  whom  to  select,  and  commands  were  an- 
nexed (adjunguntur  orationes).  The  lot  was  used,  because  being 
the  choice  of  an  apostle,  it  should  not  be  entirely  by  human  instru- 
mentality, (quia  non  debeat  esse  simpliciter  mediata  sed  apostolica 
vocatio),  but  afterward  in  the  calling  of  ministers  the  lot  was  not 
used.  When  deacons  were  to  be  called  and  elected,  the  apostles 
would  not  claim  the  right  of  making  the  choice  alone,  but  called  the 
congregation  together.  Yet  they  did  not  surrender  the  calling  of 
ministers  entirely,  and  entrust  it  to  the  blind  and  ungoverned  will- 
fulness of  the  people  or  the  multitude ;  but  took  the  direction  and 
control  of  the  choice  into  their  own  hands.  They  gave  instruction 
and  regulations  as  to  whom  they  should  elect,  and  how.  Thus  the 
elected  were  placed  before  the  apostles,  that  by  their  judgment  it 
should  be  decided  whether  the  election  was  a  proper  one  and  had 
been  rightly  made.  The  apostles  ratified  the  election  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands  and  by  prayer.  Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  elders  in 
every  church  established  by  them.  (Acts  xiv.  23.)  But  they  did 
not  assume  the  right  and  authority  exclusively  of  electing  and 
installing  pastors;  but  Luke  uses  the  word  _Yf'P"""'''A^" ''"".",  which  (2 
Cor.  viii.  19)  is  used  concerning  the  election,  which  took  place  by 
the  vote  of  the  congregation ;  the  same  being  taken   from  a  Greek 


300  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

usage,  giving  their  votes  by  stretching  forth  the  hand,  and  signifies 
the  investing  of  some  one  with  the  office  by  votes,  to  designate 
him  or  give  their  consent.  Paul  and  Barnabas,  therefore,  did  not 
impose  presbyters  on  the  Church  against  the  will  of  the  people, 
without  seeking  their  consent.  And  when  men  were  to  be  chosen 
who  should  be  sent  to  convey  to  the  Church  at  Antioch  the  charge 
or  decision  of  the  Church,  Luke  says  :  '  It  pleased  the  apostles, 
and  elders,  and  the  whole  Church,  to  send  chosen  men  of  their  own 
company  to  Antioch  with  Paul  and  Barnabas'  (Acts  xv.  22).  It 
is  necessary  to  observe  in  the  history  of  the  apostles,  that  some- 
times the  ministers  and  the  rest  of  the  congregation  jointly  elected 
whom  they  thought  worthy  of  the  sacred  office.  (Acts  i.  23.) 
Sometimes  the  congregation  made  tlie  choice,  and  submitted  it  to 
the  judgment  of  the  apostles,  whether  the  election  should  be  rat- 
ified. (Acts  vi.  5,  6.)  Often  the  apostles,  who  were  the  best  judges 
of  the  fitness  of  men,  proposed  to  the  Church  whom  they  thought 
worthy  of  the  ministry,  and  when  the  consent  and  suffrage  of  the 
people  was  added,  the  call  was  consummated.  So  Paul  sent  Tim- 
othy, Titus,  Sylvanus,  etc.,  to  the  churches.  So,  in  Acts  xiv., 
twenty-three  elders  were  selected,  to  whom  the  Church  per  x-ii><>~<>'''^a^, 
had  given  their  consent.  In  the  meantime,  some  offered  them- 
selves to  the  Church.  (i  Tim.  iii.  i.)  'If  a  man  desire  the 
ofifice  of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work.'  Yet,  always  in 
apostolic  times,  in  every  case  of  the  regular  investiture  of  men 
with  the  pastoral  office,  both  the  consent  of  the  congregation  and 
the  approval  and  ratification  of  the  ministerium  were  given.  Thus 
was  Titus  sent  to  Crete  to  direct  and  control  the  election  of  elders, 
that  it  should  be  done  in  a  proper  manner,  and  that  the  rightly- 
conducted  election  should  be  approved  and  ratified  by  ordination. 
Therefore,  Paul,  Titus  i.  5,  concerning  the  investiture  of  men 
with  the  office  of  elder,  employs  the  same  word  which  occurs  Acts 
xiv.  23,  where  at  the  same  time  he  mentions  also  j£'/)o-oi'iar,  and 
the  ordination  of  elders.  So  he  instructs  Titus  that  he  should 
sharply  reprove  those  who  are  not  sound  in  doctrine,  nor  in  what 
they  ouglit  to  teach.  And  this  he  says  clearly  (i  Tim.  v.  22),  '  Lay 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's 
sins,'  namely,  by  ratifying  a  call  which  was  not  rightly  made. 
These  examples  from  apostolic  history  show  clearly,  that  the  elec- 
tion or  calling  belongs  to  the  whole   Church  in  a  specific  way,  so 


DR.   DIEHLS    ESSAY.  3O7 

that  in  the  election  or  calHng  the  ministerium  have  their  part  and 
the  people  have  their  part.  And  this  apostolic  method  of  choosing 
and  calling  into  the  ministerial  office  was  retained  in  the  Church 
later.  When  afterwards  emperors  and  kings  embraced  the  Christian 
religion,  their  wish,  judgment  and  authority  began  to  be  sought 
and  required,  which  was  proper,  as  they  were  the  foster-parents  of 
the  Church.  This  was  the  sentiment  of  the  apostolic,  primitive  and 
ancient  Church,  concerning  the  legitimate  election  and  calling  of 
men  into  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  which  sentiment 
appertains  to  those  Churches  which  are  already  established  by  the 
word  of  God,  embracing  a  ministry  sound  in  doctrine,  a  Christian 
government,  and  a  pious  people,  well  indoctrinated  in  the  truth." 

John  Gerhard  says,  "To  the  Church  belongs  the  pastoral  office. 
I  Cor.  viii.  21  :  'AH  things  are  yours  whether  Paul,  or  Apollos, 
or  Cephas.'  Therefore,  the  Church  has  a  delegated  right  to  appoint 
worthy  teachers  of  the  Word,  and  God  desires  to  be  served  by  the 
calling  of  pious  men  into  the  ministry." 

His  train  of  argument  is  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  Chemnitz. 
He  reduces  the  work  of  making  ministers  into  a  systematic  division. 
He  says:  "Although  no  specific  rule  can  be  prescribed  for  every 
individual  case,  yet  if  we  would  give  a  comprehensive  portraiture, 
we  would  say,  to  the  ministerium  belong  the  examination,  ordina- 
tion and  installation ;  to  the  Christian  government,  the  nomination, 
the  presentation,  and  the  confirmation  ;  and  to  the  congregation, 
the  consent,  the  election,  the  approval,  or  according  to  circum- 
stances, the  petitioning  (postulatio)." 

Many  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  present  day  have  not  adopted 
the  construction  put  upon  some  of  the  passages  of  Scripture  quoted 
by  Chemnitz  and  Gerhard.  The  former  affirm  that  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  Matthias  there  was  no  election  ;  that  the  appeal  was  to 
God,  who  decided  the  choice  by  lot ;  that  the  deacons  appointed 
by  the  multitude  (Acts  vi.)  were  not  ministers,  but  lay-officers  to 
manage  the  temporalities  of  the  congregation  ;  that  Titus  was  left 
in  Crete  to  ordain  ministers,  and  no  intimation  is  given  that  the 
congregations  took  any  part  in  the  election  ;  that  when  Paul  and 
Barnabjs  ordained  elders  for  the  newly  planted  churches  in  Asia 
Minor,  the  congregations  took  no  part  in  the  transaction. 

A  different  view  from  this  was  taken  by  the  earlier  theologians  of 
the  Church,  as  was  noticed  in  the  passages  cited  from  Chemnitz  and 


308  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

Gerhard.  These  affirm  that  there  was  an  election  or  selection  by 
the  whole  congregation  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  to  fill  the  va- 
cancy in  the  apostolic  college  ;  that  the  election  was  as  real  as  any 
could  be,  only  not  definite,  that  is,  they  elected  two,  and  then 
called  on  God  to  decide  which  of  two  He  had  chosen.  So  far  as 
this  election  Avent,  laity  and  clergy  took  equal  part,  and  being  the 
first  instance  in  the  calling  of  a  minister  in  which  the  Church  was 
one  of  the  factors  and  God  the  other,  the  rule  of  lay-participation 
was  established.  They  also  hold  that  the  deacons  chosen  (Acts 
vi.)  were  not  merely  temporal  officers,  to  secure  a  just  and  impar- 
tial distribution  of  the  charities  of  the  Church  ;  that  their  first  work 
was  the  control  of  these  temporalities,  but  that  without  any  addi- 
tional commission  Tso  far  as  the  history  shows),  beyond  the  diacon- 
ate,  several  are  presented  to  us  as  performing  ministerial  acts  (cer- 
tainly one)  both  preaching  and  baptizing. 

They  further  hold  that,  the  principle  once  laid  down  that  the 
entire  Church,  clerical  and  lay,  should  take  part  in  the  investiture  of 
men  with  the  sacred  office,  these  first  transactions  flash  light  through 
all  subsequent  ordinations  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament ;  that 
an  apostolic  principle  cannot  be  controvened  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves ;  that  inspired  men  would  not  adopt  one  rule  at  Jerusalem, 
and  another  in  Crete ;  that  the  practice  pursued  twice  by  the 
Mother  Church  at  Jerusalem  under  apostolic  guidance,  would  cer- 
tainly be  followed  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  Asia  Minor  and  by 
Titus  in  Crete. 

By  a  process  of  reasoning  in  this  way  the  great  theologians  of 
the  Church  immediately  after  the  Reformation,  came  to  adopt  the 
theory  above  stated. 

In  the  proper  treatment  of  my  subject  it  is  not  necessary  to  settle 
the  question  of  difference  on  this  point.  The  general  position  laid 
down  in  this  essay,  viz.:  that  the  Church  is  one  of  the  factors  in 
the  calling  and  ordination  of  ministers  is  fully  endorsed  by  all  Lu- 
theran theologians- 

What  must  be  the  dignity  of  an  office  which  the  everlasting 
Father  and  the  eternal  Son  once  filled,  and  which  in  the  present 
dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  God  and  the  Church  unite  in  laying  on 
men  ?  How  carefully  should  the  candidate  inquire  into  the  genu- 
ineness of  his  call.  How  strictly  should  the  Church  heed  the  ad- 
monition, "Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man." 


DISCUSSION.  309 

If  there  be  two  factors  in  the  making  of  a  minister,  can  the  one 
parly  without  clear  authority  from  the  other  undo  the  work  ?  Can 
the  Church  scripturally  and  rightfully  depose  a  minister  except  for 
soul-destroying  heresy,  or  for  flagrant  immorality,  un(|uestionably 
proven  in  a  fair  trial  ? 

Can  a  minister  demit  the  holy  office  without  direct  authority  from 
heaven  and  the  full  consent  of  the  Church  ?  And  what  should  be 
regarded  as  adequate  proof  that  God  has  authorized  the  demission? 

Some  points  presented  in  this  paper  were  discussed  by  Rev.  N.  M. 
Price,  Dr.  Mann,  Dr.  Brown  and  Dr.  Conrad. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  N.  M.  PRICE.  {General  Synod.) 
Rev.  Price  did  not  agree  with  the  sentiment  advanced  in  the  essay, 
that  God  does  not  call  men  by  an  audible  voice,  or  by  supernatural 
means.  He  believed  that  some  men  are  called  in  these  marvellous 
ways.  Luther  was  called  by  a  clap  of  thunder  and  a  flash  of  light- 
ning killing  Alexis  his  college  friend.  God's  power  to  work  won- 
ders has  not  ceased. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  W.  J.  MANN,  D.  D.   {General  Council.) 

Dr.  Mann  remarked  that,  in  his  judgment,  the  views  advanced  by 
Dr.  Diehl  in  the  essay,  and  the  point  raised  by  Mr.  Price,  could  be 
harmonized.  He  supposed  the  author  of  the  essay  would  admit  that 
God  might  work  miracles  in  tliis  age,  if  there  were  any  necessity 
for  it;  but  the  paper  read  merely  affirmed  that  God  dees  not 
call  men  now  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  or  a  burning  bush,  or 
visions  of  angels. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.    {General  Synod) 

Dr.  Brown  would  be  surprised  if  any  one  in  this  nineteenth  century, 
and  in  this  Diet,  should  indorse  the  construction  put  upon  some  of 
the  Scripture  passages  cited,  which,  indeed,  the  early  Lutheran 
theologians  did  so  interpret.  But  there  is  no  truth  in  it.  There 
was  no  election  in  the  call  of  Matthias — merely  a  decision  by  lot. 


3IO  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

The  deacons  were  not  ministers,  but  lay  officers.  Not  a  word  is 
said  in  Scripture  about  Paul,  and  Barnabas,  and  Titus,  calling  the 
congregations  together  to  get  their  vote.  It  is  all  groundless  as- 
sumption. 

Having  been  informed  that  the  essayist  cited  those  texts  only  in 
quotations  from  Chemnitz  and  Gerhard  to  set  forth  their  views  and 
the  arguments  by  which  they  sustained  them,  the  subject  assigned  him 
being  the  divine  and  human  factors  in  the  call  into  the  ministry  as 
held  by  Lutheran  authorities,  Dr.  Brown  said  that  for  that  purpose 
it  was  perfectly  legitimate.  The  theory  of  those  older  Lutherans 
was  correctly  stated,  and  the  citation  of  their  arguments  faithfully 
made.     Yet  their  interpretations  on  those  points  were  untenable. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  F.  W.  CONRAD,  D.  D.     {General  Synod.) 

I  do  not  agree  with  some  of  the  representations  concerning  the 
call  to  the  ministry,  just  read.  According  to  a  general  notion,  the 
call  to  the  ministry  comes  directly  from  God,  is  addressed  to  particu- 
lar individuals,  and  is  revealed  to  them  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  an  ex- 
tra ordinary  manner.  Prompted  by  the  conviction  thus  produced, 
the  subject  of  it  makes  known  his  call  and  the  Church  is  expected  to 
endorse  it,  and  to  aid  him  in  preparing  for  the  ministry.  Thus  the 
question  is  not  decided  by  self-knowledge  and  adaptation  for  the 
work,  but  by  an  impulse,  desire,  impression,  or  notion  entertained 
by  the  individual.  The  Church  is  not  called  upon  to  exercise  her 
judgment  in  regard  to  the  existence  of  the  necessary  qualifications, 
as  the  indispensable  marks  of  a  true  call  to  the  ministry,  but  to  take 
it  for  granted  that  the  person  presenting  himself  is  truly  called. 
She  is  accordingly  expected  to  furnish  him  the  necessary  aid  in  the 
expectation  that  the  qualifications  necessary  for  the  successful  pros- 
ecution of  the  ministry,  will  be  developed  in  the  applicant  in  due 
time. 

I  hold  on  the  contrary,  that  the  true  call  to  the  ministry  involves 
the  following  characteristics  :  The  natural  constitutional  capacities 


I 


DISCUSSION.  3  I  I 

conferred  by  creation  ;  true  piety,  or  the  spiritual  qualifications  be- 
stowed through  redemption  ;  the  conscious  obligation  to  devote 
life  to  the  glory  of  God  ;  the  conviction,  based  upon  self-knowledge, 
that  he  possesses  the  necessary  natural  and  spiritual  qualifications ; 
and  the  further  conviction,  wrought  by  the  ordinary  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  truth,  that  in  the  ministry  he  could,  in 
the  highest  degree,  glorify  God  in  the  service  of  the  Church  to 
which  he  belongs. 

These  characteristics  will  not  develop  themselves,  but  must  be 
cultivated  by  the  Church,  in  order  to  develop  the  conviction  of  a 
call  to  the  ministry  in  the  candidate,  corroborated  by  the  facts  in 
his  case.  The  natural  faculties  must  be  developed  by  education ; 
the  spiritual  qualifications  by  the  means  of  grace ;  the  obligation  to 
make  the  glory  of  God  the  supreme  object  of  life,  by  special  in- 
struction ;  and  the  conviction  that  through  the  vocation  of  the  min- 
istry the  highest  usefulness  could  be  attained  by  self-examination, 
consultation  and  study.  In  thus  developing  the  call  to  the  min- 
istry, parents,  teachers,  professors,  pastors,  and  members  of  the 
Church,  should  all  take  part.  To  the  ministry  alone  is  entrusted 
the  decision  of  the  possession  of  the  qualifications  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  true  call,  and  the  introduction  into  the  office  by  licensure 
and  ordination  ;  and  to  the  laity  alone,  the  election  of  the  candi- 
date, to  the  pastorship  of  the  congregation  in  which  he  is  thus  au- 
thorized to  exercise  the  functions  of  his  office. 

The  informing  idea  of  a  call  to  the  ministry  is  that  of  adaptation 
to  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  work,  and  the  attainment  of 
highest  usefulness.  By  this  judgment  the  Father  was  governed  in 
calling  the  Son  to  the  work  of  redemption;  Christ  in  calling  the 
seventy  disciples  and  the  twelve  apostles;  the  apostles  in  selecting 
elders  to  become  pastors  of  the  churches,  and  the  churches  in 
choosing  deacons  and  deaconesses.  In  no  case  did  the-  individual 
present  himself,  and  reveal  the  fact  that  he  was  called  to  this  or  that 
special  work,  based  upon  his  own  impression,  notion,  or  judgment. 
In  each  case,  on  the  contrary,  the  judgment  of  others  was  brought 


312  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

into  requisition,  in  looking  out  for  those  possessed  of  the  required 
qualifications  for  the  service  needed,  and  by  revealing  such  judg- 
ment to  the  persons  interested,  awakening  the  conviction  of  the  call 
of  duty,  and  leading  them  to  respond  to  it,  by  entering  upon,  and 
prosecuting,  the  special  work  pointed  out  to  them. 

Every  theory  must,  in  order  to  maintain  its  verity,  interpret  all 
the  facts  pertaining  to  its  sphere.  The  ordinary  theory  of  the  call 
to  the  ministry  cannot  meet  this  requisition  in  a  single  case,  while 
the  theory  whose  characteristics  I  have  endeavored  to  present, 
accords  with  all  the  passages  of  Scripture  bearing  on  the  subject, 
and  its  truthfulness  is  further  illustrated  by  every  example  of  a  call 
to  the  ministry  given  in  the  New  Testament. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  \V.  J.  MANN,  D.  D.     [General  CouncU.) 
Dr.  Mann  differed  from  Dr.  Conrad.     He  would  like  to  know 
whether  Dr.  Conrad  was  called  by  his  parents  or  religious  instructors 
seeking  him  out  and  telling  him  he  had  a  call  to  preach,  or  whether 
he  was  moved  by  the  Spirit  in  his  soul. 

REMARKS  OF  REV.  J.  A.  BROWN,  D.  D.  {General Synod.) 
Dr.  Brown  dissented  from  the  views  expressed  by  Dr.  Conrad. 
That  process  would  be  no  call  from  God.  He  believed  the  divine 
Spirit  operates  in  the  soul  of  the  subject  and  leads  him  to  seek  the 
ministry.  The  call  is  subjective.  The  conviction  of  its  being  a 
duty  to  preach  the  Gospel  is  wrought  by  God.  As  "  the  spirit  of 
the  prophets  is  subject  to  the  prophets, ' '  this  inward  call  and  con- 
viction must  be  submitted  to  the  judgment  and  decision  of  the 
Church,  properly  exercised.  Parents,  teachers,  pastors,  may  be  in- 
struments, but  the  divine  agent  in  the  call  is  the  Holy  Ghost. ^ 

The  last  paper  was  then  read. 

'Discussion,  with  exception  of  Dr.  Conrad's  remarks,  reported  by  Dr.  Diehl, 


THE  EDUCATIONAL  AND  SACRAMENTAL  IDEAS  OF 

THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH  IN  RELATION 

TO  PRACTICAL  PIETY. 

BY  REV.  A.  C.  WEDEKIND,  D.    D.,  NEW  YORK. 

BEYOND  all  controversy,  God  has  given  His  Holy  Word  as  the 
principal  means  of  grace.  In  it  He  does  not  only  reveal  His 
adorable  nature  and  character,  but  He  sets  forth,  specifically.  His 
benevolent  purpose  to  redeem  man ;  pointing  out  to  him  clearly 
what  he  is  to  know  and  to  believe,  to  experience  and  to  practice ; 
and  then  graciously  proffers  him  the  aids  through  which  he  can 
yield  compliance  with  these  holy  demands.  The  sacred  Scriptures, 
therefore,  are  designed  to  be,  to  man's  believing  apprehension,  both 
the  power  and  the  wisdom  of  God  unto  salvation. 

Beyond  all  controversy,  too,  the  centre  of  this  Divine  Revelation, 
in  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  law,  ceremonies,  and  types  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  they  are 
related  to  man's  recovery,  pointed  like  so  many  finger-boards  to  the 
coming  Messiah,  as  the  hope  of  Israel ;  whilst  the  New  Testament 
sets  him  forth  as  the  One,  who,  "  in  the  fullness  of  time,"  actually 
appeared,  and  who  is  thenceforward  the  eternally  present  help  and 
hope  of  man.  Christ,  then,  is  at  once  the  embodiment  and  fulfill- 
ment of  the  law,  as  well  as  the  living,  incarnate  Gospel.  "He  is 
the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness,"  as  well  as  the  only  perfect 
type  and  pattern  of  it.  He  alone  is  "  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the 
Life,"  through  whom  man  can  come  to  the  Father.  As  the  God- 
man,  uniting  in  Himself  personally  Deity  and  humanity,  he  has 
effectively,  through  His  righteousness,  suffering  and  death,  expiated 
all  human  guilt.  Hence,  whosoever  hears,  believes  and  trusts  His 
Word,  without  the  ability  or  opportunity  to  attend  to  any  other 
means  of  grace,  will  be  saved. 

This  disposes  of  the  twaddle,  so  frequently  indulged  in  when  the 
nature  and  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  are  considered,  in  reference 
21  (3^3) 


314  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

to  the  thief  on  the  cross,  to  whom  Christ  opened  the  gates  of  Par- 
adise ;  and  of  Mary  Magdalene,  whom  He  sent  away  "in  peace," 
as  a  freely  forgiven  sinner. 

But  this  divinely  inspired  Word,  "which  is  able  to  save  our 
souls"  (James  i.  21);  "which  is  the  incorruptible  seed  of  which 
we  are  born  again"  (i  Peter  i.  23)  ;  through  which  we  are  "built 
up  and  have  an  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified"  (Acts 
XX.  32);  which  gives  us  "a  good  hope  through  grace"  (2  Thess.  ii. 
14-16);  this  blessed  Word,  to  which  the  Lutheran  Church,  amidst 
all  changes  and  vicissitudes,  lapses  of  men  and  alterations  of  opin- 
ions, has  so  steadfastly  adhered,  adding  nothing,  subtracting  noth- 
ing, altering  nothing  ;  this  unchanging  and  unchangeable  Word, 
reveals  to  us  that  God  in  mercy  and  great  condescension  has  estab- 
lished and  ordained  certain  Rites  and  Ordinances,  called  in  the 
Church  Sacraments,  for  high  and  holy  purposes  in  relation  to  man's 
recovery  from  the  thralldom  of  sin,  and  his  introduction  and  sup- 
port in  the  kingdom  of  grace.  It  is  my  delightful  theme  to  show 
you  the  Educational  and  Sacramental  Ideas  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  Relation  to  Practical  Piety. 

Or  in  other  words  :  What  relation  do  these  holy  Rites  or  Ordi- 
nances sustain  in  the  divine  economy,  to  secure  the  gracious  ends 
proposed,  according  to  Lutheran  views  ?  There  are  two  distinct 
branches  of  my  subject — the  Educational  and  the  Sacramental. 
The  former,  in  its  positive  aspect,  will  meet  us  further  on  ;  but  it 
may  be  brought  into  essential  unity  with  the  latter  through  the  in- 
cidental educational  effect  upon  the  Church  at  large,  resulting  from 
the  discussions  of  the  Sacraments  themselves.  And  these  effects 
are  in  every  way  important,  as  they  set  men  to  thinking,  to  com- 
pare views  and  ideas  with  counter  views  and  ideas,  thus  leading  her 
members,  like  the  "  more  noble  Bereans,  to  search  and  see  whether 
these  things  be  so."  A  world  of  good  has  thus  been  done  by  our 
theologians — however  much  abused  for  it — who,  in  the  spirit  of 
true  churchliness  and  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  have  devoted  themselves 
so  largely  to  the  setting  forth'  the  Church's  views  upon  these  doc- 
trines. As  the  two  Sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
may  be  regarded  as  a  mirror  in  which  the  whole  of  Christianity  is 
reflected  as  in  a  miniature  portrait,  every  minutia  in  regard  to 
them  becomes  important.  Hence  the  dispassionate,  didactic  dis- 
cussion of  them  cannot  but  be  beneficial.     As  a  historical  fact,  of 


DR.  WEDEKINDS    ESSAY.  315 

great  significance  in  this  connection,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  in 
the  dreary  period  of  Rationalism,  when  piety  was  banished  from 
the  domain  of  learning,  and  had  to  seek  her  retreat  in  the  cottages 
of  the  humble  and  the  lowly,  such  discussions  were  "like  angel 
visits,  few  and  far  between."  They  were  sneered  at  with  supercil- 
ious hauteur,  as  belonging  to  the  swaddling  clothes  of  an  infantile 
age  of  the  Church,  which  the  boasted  age  of  reason  had  fully  out- 
grown. And  it  may  further  be  mentioned,  that  with  the  revival  of 
these  discussions  came  the  revival  of  genuine  piety.  Indeed,  how 
could  it  be  otherwise?  When  the  divinely  appointed  means  of 
grace  were  lightly  esteemed,  how  could  grace  itself  grow?  How 
could  true  godliness  flourish,  when  men  knew  not  how  to  advance 
in  it ;  when  human  notions,  bald  and  shallow,  were  substituted 
for  Christ's  teachings  and  Christ's  mysteries  ? 

Nor  was  the  case  very  much  different  with  the  Church  here  in 
this  western  world,  in  the  days  of  her  sifting  ;  when  in  a  false  spirit 
of  accommodation  she  was  rapidly  losing  her  identity,  becoming  the 
common  hunting  ground  for  every  ism  by  which  she  was  surrounded; 
when  her  inner  glory  was  concealed,  her  gold  became  dim,  and 
the  seamless  robe  which  her  Master  had  put  upon  her  was  covered 
by  the  cast-off  rags,  either  of  frigid  formalism  on  the  one  hand,  or 
of  wild  fanaticism  on  the  other :  in  both  those  periods  the  earnest 
voice  or  forceful  pen  seldom  set  forth  her  distinctive  doctrines  of 
the  means  of  grace,  and  in  both  periods  "  the  logic  of  events" 
tended  alike  to  her  ultimate  extinction.  It  was  with  the  revival  of 
searching,  exhaustive  discussion  of  these  things,  that  her  true  life- 
blood  filled  again  her  arteries  with  vigorous  and  healthy  progress. 
It  is,  therefore,  no  longer  an  open  question  that  her  Educational 
Ideas  in  this  direction  tended  to  practical  piety  ;  that  piety,  we 
mean,  which  is  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  positive  doctrines  and 
institutions  of  God's  Word  ;  which  is  above  the  tide-mark  of  strait- 
laced  formalism,  or  effervescent  emotionalism,  but  which  is  a  real 
product  and  growth  of  divine  truth,  embraced  and  enshrouded  by 
the  heart's  holiest  affections. 

We  see,  of  course,  a  good  deal  yet  of  the  retiring  spray  of  the 
storms  that  have  passed  over  the  Church,  in  the  loose  and  unscrip- 
tural  views  that  still  linger  in  her  ranks.  The  heaving  billows  are 
not  yet  fully  at  rest,  as  every  pastor  knows  whose  eyes  and  ears  are 
open  to  the  things  that  transpire  around  him.     To  many  of  his 


3l6  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

members  the  external  ceremonies  of  the  Sacraments  only  remain, 
and  they  attend  to  them  as  mere  matters  of  form,  transmitted  to 
them  from  a  former  generation.  Baptism,  e.  g.,  in  many  families, 
has  no  higher  significance  than  that  the  child  gets  a  name  ;  in 
others  it  is  the  occasion  of  a  joyous  family  feast,  sometimes  followed 
with  music  and  dance.  With  others  still,  it  is  a  sort  of  "Mrs. 
Winslow's  Soothing  Syrup."  The  child  is  cross  ;  the  mother  tired  ; 
and  the  rite  of  Baptism  is  called  in  to  quiet  the  infant  and  give  the 
mother  rest.  Not  unfrequently  when  a  pastor  comes  into  the  house 
of  a  parishioner,  a  child  is  brought  to  him  with  the  remark  :  "  This 
is  the  man  that  put  water  on  your  head  ;"  or  ''This  is  the  man  that 
gave  you  a  name  !  !"  Of  the  sublime  mysteries  connected  with 
that  event  they  are  as  profoundly  ignorant  as  though  they  were 
Hottentots. 

This  brings  to  view,  then,  the  main  point  of  my  theme,  viz., 
The  Sacramental  Ideas  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  ln  Relation 
TO  Practical  Piety. 

Now,  to  graduate  their  effect,  we  must  first  know  what  those  ideas 
are.  Of  course  this  necessitates  the  placing  before  you  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Lutheran  Church  with  regard  to  the  Sacraments.  It 
is  a  grand  theme,  second  to  none  in  importance,  of  the  mighty 
and  timely  topics  that  have  already  been  discussed,  or  that  may  yet 
follow.  And  from  my  heart  do  I  wish  that  abler  hands  had  been 
employed  to  handle  it,  for  it  involves  the  very  centre  around  which 
nearly  all  the  confessional  divergencies  revolve.  In  approaching  it, 
methinks  I  hear  the  divine  injunction  :  "Take  the  shoes  from  off 
thy  feet,  for  the  ground  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground." 
May  Isaiah's  blessing  be  mine,  and  Cornelius'  grace  be  yours  ! 

what,  then,  is  a  sacrament? 

It  is  an  institution,  not  of  man's  devising,  but  of  God's  ordain- 
ing. It  is  not  a  human  invention,  but  a  divine  appointment.  No 
human  authority  can  make  Sacraments  in  the  Evangelical  sense  of 
that  term.  No  Church  can  do  it ;  and  the  authority  claimed  to 
establish  seven,  might,  with  equal  propriety,  have  designated 
twenty.     God,  and  God  only,  can  do  this. 

"  A  Sacrament,"  says  Schmid  in  his  Evangelische  Dogmatik,  "  is 
a  holy  rite,  appointed  by  God,  through  which,  by  means  of  an 
external  and  visible  sign,  saving  grace  is  imparted  to  a  man,  or  if  he 


DR.  WEDEKINDS    ESSAY.  317 

already  possess  it,  is  assured  to  liim.  The  Evangelical  Church 
enumerates  two  such  rites,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper ;  for  only 
through  these  two  rites,  in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  Christ, 
is  such  saving  grace  imparted  ;  and  among  all  the  sacred  ordinances 
prescribed  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  only  in  these  two  that  these  distin- 
guishing characteristics  are  combined,  viz.:  (i)  A  special,  divine 
purpose,  in  accordance  with  which,  in  the  sacred  rite,  an  external 
element  is  to  be  thus  employed;  and  (2)  the  promise  given  in  the 
divine  Word,  that  by  the  application  of  this  element,  Evangelical 
saving  grace  shall  be  im[)arted."  The  usual  definition  that  "a  6^^- 
rament  is  a  visible  sign  of  invisible  grace''''  is  only  half  true;  and 
the  more  important  half  of  the  truth  is  not  even  intimated  in  the 
definition,  as  will  appear  when  we  consider 

THE  DESIGNS  OF  THE  SACRAMENTS. 

These  are  various,  though  unique,  all  aiming  at-  man's  highest 
spiritual  interest.  The  time  allowed  me  in  this  paper  precludes,  of 
course,  any  other  than  a  mere  indication  of  each. 

(i)  As  churchly  transactions.  Sacraments  are  first  confessional. 
In  and  through  them  the  subject  of  them  confesses  himself  to  be  a 
disciple  of  Christ,  and  therefore  a  member  of  His  Church.  The 
very  term  Sacrament  implies  "to  consecrate,"  "to  vow  allegiance 
to."  Sacraments  are,  therefore,  in  this  sense,  badges  of  Christian 
discipleship.  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  make  disciples  of  all 
nations,  baptizing  them,"  was  the  Lord's  own  command.  "  The 
cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,"  etc.,  "For  we  being  many  are 
one  bread,  and  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread," 
is  St.  Paul's  statement.  In  both,  the  individual  participant  declares 
himself  to  be  a  member  of  the  "sacramental  host  of  the  Lord ;"  a 
member  of  that  mystical  body  of  which  Christ  Himself  is  the  all- 
glorious  head :  under  the  most  solemn  obligation  of  fidelity  "to 
Him  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  foreverniore.''' 

The  practical  tendency  of  this  design  of  the  holy  Sacraments  can 
hardly  be  overestimated.  As  every  Roman  soldier  who  deserted  his 
standard  was  not  only  thereby  disgraced,  but  also  liable  to  the 
severest  punishment,  so  the  church-member  who  violates  his  sacra- 
mental covenant  with  God,  who  fails  to  "come  up  to  the  help  of 
the  Lord,  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty,"  exposes  him- 
self to  the  sorest  displeasure  of  King  Emmanuel.     And  one  reason 


3l8  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

why  there  are  so  many  tepid  Christians  in  tlie  Church — Uikewarm 
disciples — is  that  they  are  so  rarely  reminded  that  their  names  stand 
on  the  muster-roll  of  Christ's  army;  that  He  "has  need  of  them" 
and  expects  them  to  do  their  whole  duty  in  the  mighty  conflict 
waging  against  sin  and  the  devil.  Each  Roman  soldier  who  had 
taken  the  "  sacrafnentuni''  regarded  the  honor  and  success  of  the 
whole  army  as  committed  to  his  individual  care  and  keeping,  and 
this  conviction  made  him  a  veritable  hero.  He  stood  like  a  rock  in 
in  the  day  of  trial,  as  is  so  beautifully  illustrated  in  ^^The  Last 
Days  of  Pompeii.'^  The  tremendous  deluge  of  fire  is  sweeping  to- 
wards the  doomed  city,  and  its  various  inmates,  following  the  bent 
of  their  minds,  seek  the  things  most  prized  by  them ;  some,  as  the 
late  excavations  so  strikingly  illustrate,  have  their  hands  on  their 
money-drawers — others  are  collecting  their  jewels — others  still  are 
gathering  around  them  their  loved  ones — whilst  the  Roman  soldier, 
halberd  in  hand,  covered  with  ashes,  soot  and  scoria,  is  found  stand- 
ing at  his  post  of  duty  at  one  of  the  city's  gates,  a  monument  of 
fidelity  to   his  sacramental  obligation. 

(2)  Another  design  of  the  Sacraments  is  that  they  are  signs  and 
seals  of  spiritual  blessings.  Man  cannot  promise  divine  grace  ; 
neither  can  he  put  a  seal  to  a  divine  promise,  with  which  to  authen- 
ticate it.  Such  a  transaction  would  be  a  stupendous  fraud.  Sacra- 
ments are  therefore  not  human  works  which  men  originate,  but  divine 
institutions  of  mercy,  of  which  men  are  the  objects  and  recipients. 
They  are  indissolubly  connected  with  the  Word,  without  which 
they  are  nothing  and  profit  nothing.  Hence  they  are,  as  already 
mentioned,  in  themselves  a  miniature  gospel,  and  are,  therefore, 
sometimes  called  the  ^^  visible  Word,"  through  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  especially  exhibits  and  seals  the  general  promises  of  gospel 
grace  to  the  believer;  assuring  him  thus,  in  the  most  impressive  and 
solemn  manner,  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  In 
human  transactions  a  seal  is  attached  to  a  document,  not  to  add  to 
the  contents  of  that  document,  but  to  attest  its  binding  force  and 
irreversible  nature.  So  God  has  not  only  promised  purity,  p)ardon 
and  peace,  but  remembering  our  weakness,  and  how  strongly  we 
are  impressed  by  sensible  objects,  He  has  appointed  these  ordinances 
as  seals  or  pledges  of  His  promises.  "  The  simple  assurance  given 
to  Noah  that  the  earth  should  not  a  second  time  be  destroyed  by  a 
deluge,  might  have  been  a  sufficient  foundation  for  confidence;  bu 


DR.    WEDEKINDS    ESSAY.  3I9 

God  saw  fit  to  appoint  tlie  rainbow  to  be  a  perpetual  confirmation 
of  His  covenant;  and  through  all  generations,  when  the  bow  appears, 
men  feel  that  it  is  not  merely  a  sign  of  the  returning  sun,  but  a 
divinely  appointed  pledge  of  the  promise  of  God."  So,  too,  the 
promise  of  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage,  given  to  the  Israel- 
ites, was  in  itself  sufficient  to  assure  them  that,  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  His  promise,  the  destroying  angel  should  pass  over  their 
houses  without  disturbing  any  of  their  inmates  ;  yet  it  pleased  Him 
to  appoint  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  as  the  sign  and  seal  of  this 
covenant.  In  like  manner,  God,  willing  more  abundantly  to  show 
unto  His  people  the  immutability  of  His  promise,  has  confirmed  it 
by  these  seals,  to  assure  them  that,  as  certainly  as  they  receive  the 
signs  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  so  certainly  shall  they  receive 
the  blessings  themselves. 

(3)  And  this  brings  to  view  the  primary  design  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, viz.:  "The  offering,  conferring  and  applying,  as  well  as 
sealing  of  gospel  grace."  "  Gospel  grace  is  offered  to  all  who  use 
the  Sacraments  ;  it  is  conferred  on  all  who  worthily  use  them  ;  it  is 
applied  and  sealed  to  adult  believers."  Sacraments  are,  therefore, 
channels  through  which  the  covenanted  blessings  are  conveyed  to 
the  worthy  recipient  of  them.  The  testamentary  parchment  that 
contains  the  friendly  bec^uest  of  a  large  fortune  to  me,  is  not  simply 
the  sign  or  the  seal  of  my  inheritance,  but  the  instrument  that  con- 
veys it  to  me.  It  would  be  a  poor  satisfaction,  indeed,  to  be  con- 
tent with  the  paper  as  the  mere  sign  of  the  kind  intention  of  the 
testator,  whilst  the  rich  contents  remained  unappropriated.  The 
value  and  importance  of  the  paper  consist  in  the  fortune  it  conveys 
to  me. 

So  our  blessed  Lord,  whose  "unsearchable  riches"  have  been 
bequeathed  to  his  followers  in  express  terms  o{ '■'^  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  His  blood,''^  has  clearly  stated.  As  the  divine  Word  is  en- 
dowed with  supernatural  efficacy  to  produce  regenerating,  renew- 
ing and  sanctifying  effects  on  the  minds  of  men,  when,  through  the 
Divine  Spirit,  it  is  believingly  apprehended,  so  the  Sacraments, 
which  are  the  visible  Word,  communicate,  through  the  same  holy 
agency,  what  the  gracious  Lord  Himself  has  put  into  them.  They 
are  His  appointed  channels  to  confer  and  apply  H'x?,  genera/  prom- 
ises of  grace,  specifically  and  especially  to  their  worthy  intlividual 
recipients.     Nothing  less  than  this  can  satisfy  the  strong  language 


320  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

of  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject,  or  the  experience  of  God's  people. 
When  baptism  is  called  the  washing  of  regeneration  (Titus  iii.  5), 
when  it  is  said  to  unite  us  to  Christ  (Gal.  iii.  27),  to  make  us  par- 
takers of  His  death  and  life  (Rom.  vi.  4,  5),  to  wash  away  our  sins, 
(Acts  xxii.  16),  to  save  the  soul  (i  Pet.  iii.  21);  and  when  the 
bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  are  said  to  be  the  body  and 
the  blood  of  Christ,  the  partaking  of  which  secures  union  with 
Christ,  and  participation  of  the  merits  of  His  death  (i  Cor.  x.  16, 
17),  it  is  the  merest,  sheerest,  baldest  logomachy,  as  well  as  the 
most  unenviable  piety,  to  fritter  away  such  unqualified  declarations 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  into  mere  hyperboles,  or  simple  signs  and  sym- 
bols. We  ask  with  great  emphasis,  where  is  there  anything  of  this 
sort  in  the  bond  ?  Is  it  there  ?  No  ?  Then  by  what  authority  do 
you  put  it  there  ?  Who  %znq  you  the  authority  to  amend  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Ten  thousand  times  shame  on  your 
wicked  presumption  !  Would  you  have  ever  dreamed  of  it  had  not 
Rome  in  her  frenzy  taught  the  ex  opere  operato  theory  ?  No  ?  Then 
why  do  you  suppose  that  two  wrongs  will  make  a  right  ?  Has  the  Lu- 
theran Church  ever  taught  you  any  such  notion  ?  Far  from  it. 
She  teaches  you  most  explicitly  that  faith  is  necessarily  required  in 
order  to  the  reception  of  the  salutary  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments.  If 
the  Sacraments  are  the  visible  rosy-red  hand  of  God's  mercy  in 
which  He  offers  the  richest  boons  of  His  grace ;  she  teaches  her 
children  that  a  trusting,  confiding  hand  on  their  part  is  necessary  to 
secure  them.  Whilst  she  undoubtedly  teaches — and  I  personally 
thank  God  for  it — that  in  infants  the  Holy  Spirit  kindles  faith  by 
the  Sacrament  of  initiation,  by  which  they  receive  the  grace  of  the 
covenant  (if  they  receive  not  that,  what  do  they  receive?)  she,  with 
equal  clearness,  announces  to  those  of  riper  years,  that  the  Sacra- 
ments confer  no  grace  on  adults,  unless,  when  offered,  they  receive 
them  by  true  faith,  which  must  exist  in  their  hearts  previously. 

Shielded  thus  against  all  misapprehension  and  false  application, 
it  will  not  be  difficult  to  set  forth  the  Lutheran  views  of  each  of 
the  Sacraments  separately.     We  of  course  commence  with 

BAPTISM. 

This  was  instituted  by  Christ  Himself,  and  has  the  promise  of  sal- 
vation. It  makes  its  subject  God's  child — the  greatest  blessing  of 
man  on  earth.     It  introduces  him  to  God's  covenant,  and  secures 


DR.  WEDEKINDS  ESSAY.  321 

for  him  all  God's  covenanted  mercies.  It  is  administered  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  to  show  not  only  the  in- 
tense solemnity  of  the  transaction,  but  to  pledge  us  at  the  same 
time  the  Father's  love,  the  Son's  righteousness,  and  the  Spirit's  com- 
fort and  communion.  There  is  in  this  ordinance  a  deep  mystery 
which  transcends  all  human  ken,  and  demands  an  unreserved, 
child-like  and  entire  faith  and. confidence  in  the  words  and  promise 
of  Christ  and  His  apostles.  To  me  its  profound  spiritual  meaning 
seems  typified  by  the  several  external  events  that  transjjired  at 
Christ's  own  baptism.  It  is  stated  that  on  that  occasion  Jesus  saw 
"heaven  opened;"  typifying,  I  think,  that  Baptism  ojjens  to  us  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;  next,  the  Father's  voice  is  heard  saying,  "This 
is  My  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  ;"  announcing  to  us 
the  fact  that  in  Baptism  we  are  sealed  as  the  Father's  dear  children  : 
and  finally,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  seen,  in  dove-like  form,  to  hover  over 
this  deeply  mysterious  and  "all-righteousness  fulfilling"  transaction, 
indicating  the  design,  that  in  Baptism  the  spirit  of  love,  of  purity, 
and  of  dove  like  innocence,  shall  descend  into  the  heart  of  the  bap- 
tized person. 

The  main  reason  why  so  many  pastors  know  not  what  position  to 
assign  to  this  blessed  ordinance,  is  the  confusion  of  ideas  in  the 
"  Order  of  Salvation,"  and  the  interchange,  as  synonymous  terms, 
of  regeneration  and  conversion.  In  Baptism  the  former  is  effected, 
and  the  right  of  the  latter  secured.  In  the  initiative  ordinance  man 
becomes  God's  child,  and  the  divine  life  in  its  germinal  character  is 
implanted  in  his  soul,  which  lies  in  the  heart,  not  like  a  concealed 
stone,  but  like  a  good  seed  in  the  garden,  or  like  a  noble  scion 
grafted  on  a  wild  stem,  and  not  like  a  dead  nail  driven  into  the 
trunk.  The  very  term,  "  conversion,"  implies  that  the  man  has 
gone/rom  something  good,  and  in  "turning  round" — which  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word  "conversion" — he  is  to  go  back  to  "that 
good  thing  committed  to  him." 

The  objection  here  urged  is,  that  if  conversion  is  necessary,  then 
what  practical  benefit  is  regeneration  ?  Answer  :  If  he  remains 
faithful  in  his  baptismal  covenant,  growing  "  up  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord,"  like  John  the  Baptist,  the  baptized  child 
will  be  "sanctified  from  his  mother's  womb."  That  this  can  be, 
no  believer  in  the  Bible,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  history  of  a 
Samuel,  a  John,  or  a  Timothy,  will  question.     That  it  ought  to  be, 


322  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

St.  Paul's  language,  quoted  above,  sufficiently  indicates.  That  it  is 
not,  proves  nothing  against  God's  Word,  nor  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church,  but  only  shows  that  there  is  a  fearful  delinquency  some- 
where ;  and  where  that  is  we  shall  see  by  and  by.  It  is,  alas  !  but 
too  true,  as  every  pastor  knows,  that  not  all  who  have  been  bap- 
tized continue  in  their  baptismal  grace  and  covenant,  and  live  as  it 
becomes  God's  children ;  yea,  some  live  as  if  there  were  no  God  to 
fear  and  no  hell  to  dread.  They  "put  asunder  what  God  has 
joined  together" — Faith  and  Baptism.  To  secure  salvaiion,  both 
are  necessary.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ; 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  If  faith,  therefore,  is  not 
added  to  baptism;  if  the  stupid  theory  of  ex  opere  operato  is  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously  relied  on,  then  unbelief  will  drag  after  it 
its  own  legitimate  fruit — damnation.  But,  says  the  objector,  if 
Faith  does  the  work,  what  use  is  there  of  Baptism?  "  Much  every 
way."  First,  because  God  has  so  ordained.  From  this  state- 
ment there  can  be  no  appeal.  In  reference  to  it,  we  can 
only  say  :  "  Even  so,  Lord,  for  so  it  seemeth  good  in  Thy  sight." 
Nothing  but  the  baldest  infidelity,  or  the  most  supercilious  conceit, 
can  set  this  fact  aside.  Then,  too,  the  relation  established  through 
this  ordinance  between  God  and  the  baptized  person  is  a  most  sacred 
one — that  of  childhood  of  God.  Now  a  child  that  has  a  father  can 
seek  him  again  even  if  he  has  gone  astray ;  he  who  has  a  father's 
house  to  go  to,  can  always  return,  though  like  the  Prodigal,  he  "has 
gone  into  a  far  country."  This  is  the  prerogative  which  Baptism 
secures  to  God's  erring  child.  How  is  it  with  an  earthly  father, 
whose  prodigal  son  has  most  grievously  wronged  him,  when  that 
son,  after  long  wanderings,  returns,  though  in  the  dead  hour  of 
midnight,  and,  with  tearful  eye  and  choked  voice,  knocks  at  the 
paternal  door,  begging  :  Father,  open  unto  me  !  thy  child,  weary, 
naked  and  desolate,  stands  here,  freezing  in  the  cold  of  winter,  and 
perishing  with  hunger  and  thirst  in  this  merciless  world  ; — what, 
think  you,  would  that  father  do  ?  And  will  not  our  compassionate 
Father  in  heaven  open  mercy's  door  to  His  returning  prodigal  child, 
and  thus  save  him  from  despair  ?  I  tell  you,  yea,  for  He  has  made  a 
covenant  with  hiin  in  Baptism,  "  well  ordered  in  all  things  and 
sure  ;"  and  though  man  may  violate  it  again  and  again,  God  never. 
"  He  cannot  deny  Himself."  He  will  continue  his  Father,  even 
should  the  child  at  last  be  lost.  O  !  there  is  in  this  holy  Sacrament, 
depth  of  mercy  which  no  human  plummet  has  ever  yet  sounded. 


DR.  WEDEKINDS  ESSAY,  323 

And  what  an  ocean  of  comfort  there  lies  in  this  doctrine  of  our 
Church  for  practical  piety.  Man's  utter  impotence  is  learned  no- 
where so  thoroughly  as  where  his  love  nestles  most  warmly.  A 
mother  ^  in  tears  sits  by  the  cradle  of  an  ailing  child  sobbing  :  'My 
darling  is  very  ill;'  but  she  is  thrice  blessed,  if,  when  bowing  be- 
fore her  Maker  in  prayer,  she  can  say  :  'Father,  Thy  child  is  sick.' 
Or  the  father  notices  with  deep  sorrow  and  grief,  how  unruly  passions 
and  sinful  desires  dcve-lop  themselves  in  his  child,  which  he  cannot 
eradicate ;  but  thrice  happy  is  he  when  he  can  look  up  to  God  and 
say  :  '  Behold,  Father,  Thy  child  is  tempted  of  the  flesh,  the  world, 
and  the  devil ;  Thou  hast  conquered  these  foes,  Thou  canst  shield 
and  succor  Thy  child.'  The  eyes  of  father  and  mother  can't  see 
very  far,  nor  can  their  hands  reach  at  a  great  distance,  and  when 
their  child  leaves  the  parental  roof  to  try  the  slippery  paths  of  a 
corrupt  and  corrupting  world,  they  look,  after  him  with  deep 
anxiety ;  but  how  blessed  are  they  to  know  that  their  loved  one  is 
accompanied  by  another  Father,  whose  eye  never  slumbers  and 
whose  mighty  arm  is  round  and  about  him  in  all  his  wanderings. 
And  when  at  last  the  father's  eye  breaks  and  the  mother's  hand 
grows  cold,  and  the  final  struggle  comes  to  tear  their  hearts  loose 
from  the  child  that  stands  weeping  at  their  death-bed,  how  com- 
forting for  them  to  know  that  He  never  dies  "  who  is  the  true  Father 
of  all  them  that  are  called  children."  How  truly  poor  is  that 
household  in  which  the  faith  in  the  unspeakable  blessings  of  the 
baptismal  covenant  has  become  extinct  !  How  have  the  children 
been  robbed  of  their  holiest  attire,  their  chief  jewel  !  And  what 
deep  anxiety  and  discomfort  must  those  parents  feel  when  their 
natural  attachment  for  their  offspring  arouses  their  hearts'  deepest 
concern  for  their  temporal  and  eternal  welfare  ! 

Bear  with  me,  then,  brethren,  if  I  seem  unnecessarily  lengthy  on 
this  subject.  Above  all  others,  this  demands  chief  attention  just 
now.  You,  as  well  as  I,  have  noticed  that  almost  every  district  con- 
ference in  our  Church  is  debating  some  aspect  or  other  of  this  ordi- 
nance, indicating  not  only  that  this  a  living  question,  but  that  there 
is  a  painful  unfixedness  of  views,  as  well  as  a  general  feeling  after  the 
truth.     If  this  paper  shall  call  special  attention  to  the  proper  study 

1  Biichsel's  '■'Erinncningcii^^  to  wliicli  I  am  indebted  for  m.my  of  these 
thoughts. 


324  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

of  this  subject,  its  principal  aim  will  be  attained.  I  go  on,  there- 
fore, and  say  : 

That  another  diffi:ulty  in  the  way  of  assigning  the  proper  posi- 
tion to  this  Sacrament  is  the  inadequate  conception  in  many  minds 
of  the  deep  depravity  of  the  human  heart.  They  fail  to  grasp  the 
Bible  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  man  being  "  conceived  in  sin  and 
shapen  in  iniquity;"  that  "he  is  unrighteous  before  God;"  that 
he  "  is  of  the  earth,  earthy;"  that  "what  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh;" 
that  "  the  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint ;"  that  this 
moral  disease  has  infected  his  whole  being,  lying  within  his  very 
centre  like  the  seed  of  the  deadly  night-shade,  that  will  grow  with 
his  growth,  and  strengthen  with  his  strength ;  and  that  unless 
God  in  His  infinite  mercy  change  that  nature,  it  will  and  must 
develop  into  a  child  of  wrath.  Hence  the  blessed  Saviour  so  ex- 
plicitly teaches,  John  iii.  5,  "Except  any  one  be  born  again  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  God."  But  now,  "  It  is  not 
the  will  of  your  heavenly  Father  that  any  of  these  little  ones  should 
perish;"  therefore  He  meets  them  at  the  very  entrance  of  life  with 
the  moral  antidote  to  the  moral  disease,  and  that  not  only  in  a 
purely  spiritual  and  invisible  way,  but  also  in  the  visible  sign  and 
pledge  of  holy  Baptism.  The  child  is  thus  early  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  its  spiritual  physician.  This  assigns  to  this  or- 
dinance a  definite,  most  gracious,  and  most  positive  position.  It 
makes  something  more  of  it  than  a  mere  venerable  and  ancient  cus- 
tom, which  at  most  can  do  no  harm,  and  which  by  some,  indeed,  is 
regarded  as  "being  honored  more  in  the  breach  than  in  the  observ- 
ance." We  speak  not  unadvisedly  on  this  subject ;  nor  are  we  to  be 
considered  as  false  accusers  of  brethren  when  we  affirm  that  there  are 
Synods  in  our  Church,  which,  according  to  the  last  General  Synod's 
Report,  do  not  average  two  infant  baptisms  a  year  in  each  of  their 
thirty-four  congregations  !  Is  it  supposable  that  in  such  localities 
the  doctrine  of  the  heart's  moral  disease,  and  its  divine  antidote, 
are  fully  comprehended  ?  Is  there  no  urgent  need  of  calling  spe- 
cial attention  to  this  subject? 

But  in  this  covenant  of  Baptism,  there  are  other  parties  besides 
the  Holy  God  and  the  feeble  child.  And  here  "  The  Educational 
Ideas  of  the  Lutheran  Church"  come  in.  Parents  have  assumed 
the  weighty  responsibilities  of  Christian  nurture  in  reference  to 
their  children;    and  their  children  have  the  unquestioned  and  un- 


DR.  WEDEKIND's  essay,  32$ 

ciuestionable  claim  to  it.  And  woe  be  to  tliem  who  neglect  it ! 
They  become  not  only  "covenant  breakers,"  but  the  neglecters, 
if  not  the  destroyers,  of  the  highest  interests  of  their  offspring. 
Here  is  the  last  answer  in  the  baptismal  formula  of  our  Church  : 
"Do  you  desire  that  this  child  shall  be  baptized  into  the  Christian 
faith  :  and  are  you  resolved  to  instruct  him  carefully  in  the  gospel  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  teach  him  to  walk  according  to  its 
holy  commandments?  Answer,  Ye?,.''  In  the  baptismal  covenant 
the  parents  have  become  God's  messengers  to  these  little  immor- 
tals;  His  co-workers  for  their  religious  training;  yea,  His  substi- 
tutes, doing  as  He  would  do,  were  He  visibly  present  to  manage 
this  momentous  work  !  To  Him,  therefore,  they  are  responsible 
for  every  step  they  take  in  this  important  matter.  They  are  vital 
factors  in  this  gracious  plan  and  purpose  of  the  Almighty.  So  God 
teaches;  so  our  Church  believes.  Hence  Luther  prepared  his 
Sjtiall  Catechism, -^nmc^xWy 'ior  the  family;  heading  each  division 
thus:  "  Quomodo  pater-familias  {id.)  suce  familice  simplicissime 
tradere  debeat.'"  But  alas  !  as  in  so  many  other  instances,  so  also 
here ;  there  is  a  heaven-wide  difference  between  precept  and  prac- 
tice, between  plan  and  execution !  How  many  children  are  denied 
this  wholesome  spiritual  food  !  How  many  grow  up,  even  in  nom- 
inally Christian  families,  without  prayer,  without  instruction, 
without  the  simple  knowledge  even  that  they  stand  in  God's  cove- 
nant, without  ever  so  much  as  having  seen  a  catechism  until  they 
are  sent  to  the  pastor  for  instruction !  And  yet,  just  from  such 
sources  come  the  objections  to  the  Church's  doctrine  on  this  subject, 
as  many  pastors  present,  as  well  as  absent,  can  abundantly  testify. 
But  is  it  a  wonder  that  the  Divine  purpose  in  this  holy  covenant  is 
so  largely  neutralized,  seeing  the  conditions  from  the  human  side, 
so  recklessly  neglected  if  not  positively  ignored  ?  Can  we  expect 
to  "gather  grapes  from  thorns,  or  figs  from  thistles?"  Will  "a 
bitter  fountain  send  forth  sweet  water?"  Yet  this  is  the  sad  condi- 
tion in  thousands  of  our  families.''     Of  course,  man  cannot  see  what 

2  During  my  present  course  of  catechetical  instruction,  four  lads  in  my  class, 
when  questioned  on  this  subject  (they  are  not  the  children  of  my  flock)  ac- 
knowledged that  they  had  never  read  two  chapters  in  the  Bible,  though  each 
was  over  fifteen  years  of  age !  One  had  never  read  a  single  verse  at  home! 
The  other  thought  that  perhaps  they  might  have  read  from  ten  verses  to  two 
chapters,  but  certainly  not  more  !  Neither  of  them  knew  whether  he  was  bap- 
tized !  ! 


326  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

the  Holy  Spirit  is  doing  all  this  while  in  the  youthful  heart  ;  how 
He  is  fanning  the  gentle  flame  to  keep  it  alive,  so  that,  as  in  nature, 
when  the  frost  of  winter  is  thawed  by  the  warming  rays  and  showers 
of  spring,  and  the  superincumbent  ice  and  snow  melt,  and  "  the 
storms  are  over  and  gone,"  the  little  sprig  of  the  planted  seed 
springs  forth  despite  the  unpromising  antecedents.  One  thing  is 
sure,  and  we  wish  to  score  it,  that  no  greater  earthly  blessing  can 
come  to  a  child  than  to  unfold  its  being  in  the  sacred  precincts  of  a 
Christian  family,  where  it  is  enfolded  in  the  warm  embrace  of 
sanctified  maternal  love,  and  where  its  tiny  hand  is  laid,  into  that  of 
a  pious,  God-fearing  father  for  guidance  and  direction.  No  inher- 
itance, however  vast,  is  comparable  to  this.  No  world-wide 
renown,  however  brilliant,  can  bless  a  child  one  tithe  as  much  as 
the  simple  and  ineffaceable  remembrance  of  a  Christ-loving  father 
and  mother.  Well  did  Richard  Baxter  say,  that  if  parents  would 
do  their  duty,  more  would  be  savingly  called  in  the  family  than  in 
the  sanctuary.     God  fill  our  churches  with  such  parents  ! 

But  in  this  baptismal  covenant  the  Church  as  well  as  the  family, 
has  an  important  part  to  perform.  She  is  not  only  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed almoner  of  God's  mercies  and  mysteries  ;  she  is  an  essen- 
tial factor  in  the  development  of  the  gracious  purposes  designed  to 
be  accomplished  in  Baptism.  As  an  agency  co-ordinate  with  the 
family,  in  this  direction,  she  is  to  give  "  Une  upon  line,"  etc.,  in  the 
education  of  the  lambs  of  the  flock.  To  her  the  blessed  Master 
said,  through  Peter:  "Feed  J^  lambs  "  What  the  parents  are 
designed  to  commence,  the  Church  is  commanded  to  carry  forward 
and  complete.  From  the  family  into  school ;  from  the  school  into 
Church,  from  the  Church  into  heaven,  is  her  theory.  Accordingly 
the  children  are  sent  to  the  pastor  for  "instruction"  in  the  doc- 
trines of  religion  and  the  duties  of  life.  In  no  department  of  the 
pastor's  work  can  he  make  himself  more  lastingly  and  more  bene- 
ficially felt  than  in  these  hours.  Here  was  the  secret  spring  of  that 
pietistic  movement,  so  much  lauded  but  so  little  understood,  of 
Philip  Jacob  Spener.  If  conscientious  and  faithful  in  the  cate- 
chetical class,  the  pastor  will  have  comfort  and  joy  in  all  his  con- 
gregational work.  At  no  other  time  and  in  no  other  place  can  he 
approach  the  heart  nearer,  or  convey  a  knowledge  of  Christianity 
to  the  comprehension  of  the  youthful  mind  clearer,  than  in  the 
catechetical  system  of  the  Church.     It  is  a  shame,  therefore,  that 


DR.  WEDEKINDS    ESSAY.  3  2/ 

this  glorious  system  should  have  ever  been  suffered  to  degenerate 
into  a  mere  humdrum-like  perfunctory  performance,  resembling 
the  Hindoo's  praying  machine  placed  by  the  stream  to  be  turned  by 
the  flowing  water,  soulless,  aimless,  senseless  ;  or  to  be  supplanted 
altogether  by  a  system  which,  whilst  it  may  have  the  glare  and  furor 
of  a  prairie  fire,  is  as  destructive  too.  These  Educational  Ideas  of 
the  Church,  or  catechetical  instructions,  where  the  meetings  are 
but  once  a  week^  should  extend,  at  least,  through  one  whole  year. 
They  are,  of  course,  preparatory  to  the  solemn  rite  of  Confirmation, 
which  is  the  connecting  link  between  the  two  Sacraments,  or  the 
bridge  by  which  we  pass  from  the  one  over  to  the  other.  Confirma- 
tion, which  has  come  to  us  from  the  apostolic  age,  is  a  personal 
ratification  of  the  baptismal  covenant,  and  an  individual  assump- 
tion of  all  its  conditions  and  responsibilities.  It  is  followed  by  the 
first  reception  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  unites  thus  in  itself,  as  in 
the  focal  point  of  the  Christian  life,  all  the  means  of  grace  :  the 
Word,  through  the  preceding  instruction;  Baptism,  through  the 
renewal  of  the  covenant,  and  the  Holy  Supper,  through  the  first 
participation  of  it.  What  a  day  !  How  glad,  how  sad  !  How  full 
of  holy  reminiscences  !  How  big  with  hopes  and  fears  !  Its  salu- 
tary influences  are  designed  to  extend  through  the  whole  life. 

We  are  now  brought  to  consider  the  second  Sacrament  of  the 
Church  : 

THE   lord's    supper. 

As  in  the  initiative  ordinance  the  divine  life  in  the  soul  has  its 
beginning,  so  the  confirmative  Supper  is  designed  to  nourish  and 
strengthen  it ;  but  as  in  the  world  this  spiritual  life  is  often  de- 
pressed and  weakened,  this  means  of  reviving  it  is  to  be  frequently 
repeated.  This  was  the  case  in  the  primitive  Church,  and  also  in 
the  Reformation  period.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  deep  regret 
that  the  un-Lutheran  custom  obtains  so  extensively  throughout  our 
Church,  of  celebrating  this  ordinance  but  once  or  twice,  or  at  most 
four  times  a  year.  May  the  day  soon  come  when  our  congregations 
will  make  arrangements  that  the  Lord's  table  shall  be  spread  once 
a  month  ! 

In  this  holy  ordinance,  instituted  by  Christ  Himself,  "on  the 
night  in  which  He  was  betrayed,"  He  gives  us,  through  the  visible 
elements  of  bread  and  wine,  all  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  as  these 


328  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

blessings  are  all  embodied  in  Himself:  for  He  gives  us  Himself; 
as  the  words  of  the  institution  so  emphatically  declare :  "  This  is 
My  body;"  "This  is  My  blood."  It  is  Myself;  let  each  one  of 
you,  believingly,  appropriate  Myself  to  himself 

In  this  Sacrament,  even  more  than  in  the  first,  the  Lutheran 
Church  differs  from  all  other  "Protestants,  as  well  as  from  all 
Romanists.  She  utterly  rejects  the  Tridentine  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation ;  and  with  equal  energy  and  emphasis  she  rejects  the 
mere  mnemonic  notions  of  Zwingle.  She  does,  indeed,  not  ignore 
the  manorial  feature  of  this  holy  ordinance  ;  for  her  Lord  has 
said:  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me,"  and  she  has  the  utmost 
regard  and  reverence  for  His  words.  As  the  paschal  lamb,  eaten 
at  the  same  table  at  which  the  holy  Supper  was  instituted,  should 
perpetuate  from  generation  to  generation  the  remembrance  of 
Israel's  wonderful  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage ;  so  Jesus 
desired  that  His  holy  Supper  should  remind  His  followers  through 
all  time  to  come  of  their  great  redemption  from  the  thralldom  of 
sin  and  Satan  through  His  innocent  sufferings  and  death.  Our 
Church  teaches  her  children  devoutly  to  call  to  mind  Christ's  agony 
in  Gethsemane,  His  indignities  at  Pilate's  bar,  and  His  unutterable 
sufferings  on  Golgatha.  They  remember  His  sweat  as  it  falls  like 
great  drops  of  blood  to  the  ground ;  they  think  of  the  horrible 
scourgings,  the  cruel  mockings,  and  the  piercing  cry:  "My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me."  All  these  things,  endured 
by  the  Son  of  God  for  the  redemption  of  man,  pass  like  a  living 
panorama  before  us  as  we  stand  or  kneel  around  the  Lord's  table. 
Yes,  the  Lutheran  Church  teaches,  and  all  her  children  believe,  the 
memorial  feature  of  the  holy  Supper. 

But  with  equal  fervor  and  unquestioned  confidence  she  teaches, 
and  her  children  believe,  every  other  statement  made  by  the  blessed 
Lord  and  His  inspired  apostles  in  reference  to  this  holy  ordinance. 
Accordingly  she  finds  in  it  unspeakably  more  than  the  mere  me- 
morial feature.  If  it  be  no  more  than  a  simple  mnemonic  rite, 
then  a  "crucifix"  or  an  "  Ecce  Homo"  painting,  would  much 
better  accomplish  that  end  than  a  piece  of  bread  and  a  little  wine. 
And,  therefore,  the  Lutheran  Church  teaches,  and  her  children 
believe,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  only  a  visible  gospel  that  re- 
calls to  mind  the  most  stupendous  facts  in  the  history  of  redemption, 
but  that  it  carries  and  communicates  to  the    humble,   penitent,  be- 


DR.  WEDEKIXDS    ESSAY.  329 

• 

lieving  participant,  all  tliat  it  objectively  sets  forth,  as  indicated  by 
the  Saviour's  language,  "broken  for  you,"  and  "shed  for  the  re- 
mission of  sin."  And  this  she  teaches,  and  they  believe,  not 
because  she  has  fathomed,  and  they  have  encompassed,  the  mighty 
mystery  involved  in  His  holy  ordinance,  but  upon  the  sole  declara- 
tion of  the  blessed  Lord  Himself.-  And  thus  trusting  with  childlike 
simplicity  her  loving  Lord,  she  is  fully  persuaded  that  He  will  not 
tantalize  or  deceive  her.  When  He  says,  "This  is  my  body," 
"this  is  my  blood,"  "take  and  eat,"  "drink  ye  all  of  it,"  He 
does  not  offer  us  a  myth  instead.  He  offers  us  Himself,  as  the  soul- 
food  of  all  His  followers.  Hence  He  says,  "  He  that  eateth  My 
flesh  and  drinketh  My  blood,  dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him."  "As 
the  living  Father  hath  sent  Me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he 
that  eateth  Me,  even  he  shall  live  by  Me."  Language  could  not 
be  plainer.  The  words  and  things  chosen  set  forth  this  gracious, 
ennobling,  soul  supporting  union  and  communion  with  Him. 

It  requires  only  an  entrance  into,  and  a  full  realization  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  to  apprehend  in 
some  humble  measure  the  profound  purposes  of  its  divine  Author. 
He  had  announced  to  His  disciples  the  withdrawal  of  His  visible 
presence  from  them.  This  announcement  filled  them  with  undis- 
guised sorrow.  "Their  hearts  were  troubled."  He  deeply  sym- 
pathized with  them.  "  Having  loved  His  own,  He  loved  them  unto 
the  end."  And  to  assure  them  of  this  unfailing  and  undiminished 
love,  and  setting  aside  all  known  laws  of  human  language.  He  says 
to  them,  in  the  overflow  of  His  love:  Here,  take  Me;  take  My 
whole  self — "  My  body  and  blood ;"  feast  upon  Me,  and  let  this  be 
your  soul-food  for  evermore  ! 

Does  any  one  now  say,  with  the  murmuring  Jews  :  "  How  can 
this  man  give  us  His  flesh  to  eat?"  We  answer:  Jesus  never 
asserted,  our  Church  never  taught,  and  her  children  never  iDelieved, 
any  such  gross,  Capernaitish  idea  or  view.  What  we  believe  the 
Saviour  to  have  taught  is  that,  with  the  external  signs  of  bread  and 
wine  which  remain  unchanged  in  all  respects,  the"  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  a  supernatural  and  to  us  incomprehensible  7a. ry,  communicates 
Himself  with,  in  and  under  the  form  of  breatl  and  wine,  to  the  be- 
lieving communicant,  with  all  the  effects  of  His  glorious  redemption 
work ;  that  He  unites  Himself  mystically  but  really  with  them  ; 
conformably  to  the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  i  Cor.  x,  16, 
22 


330  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

"The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ?"  As  certainly,  therefore,  as  we  have 
in  the  Holy  Supper  real  bread  and  real  wine,  not  the  semblance  of 
bread  nor  the  semblance  of  wine,  so  have  we  in  it  the  real  presence 
of  Christ,  and  not  an  imaginary,  inferential  or  mythical  presence. 
Else  how  could  the  holy  Apostle  Paul  say  :  "  Whosoever  shall  eat 
this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord."  "  For  he  that  eateth*  and 
drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not 
discerning  the  Lord's  body.'' 

The  theological  and  practical  bearings  of  this  Sacrament,  as  held 
by  the  Lutheran  Church,  are  of  incalculable  moment.  We  cannot 
now  even  enumerate  them,  for  this  paper  is  already  much  beyond 
the  prescribed  limit.  But  incidentally  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  is  essentially  involved  in  it. 
In  it,  too,  centers  the  Christian's  joy,  comfort,  hope  and  happiness. 
Hence  he  derives  the  full  assurance  of  his  glorious  immortality. 
Here  he  sees,  as  nowhere  else,  that  purity  of  heart  and  holiness  of 
life  are  possible  for  him  only  as  he  abides  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in 
him;  so  that  he  can  adopt  the  triumphant  language  of  St.  Paul: 
"  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  f  and  the  life  which  I 
now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who 
loved  me  and  gave  Himself  for  me." 

This  ordinance  emphasizes  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Communion  of 
Saints.''  Around  the  sacramental  board  we  proclaim  ourselves 
members  of  one  holy  family,  whose  father  is  God  and  whose  elder 
brother  is  Christ,  the  Lord.  Hence  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  "We, 
being  many,  are  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread."  And  as  an  experimental  fact,  it  may  be  mentioned  that 
at  no  other  time,  and  on  no  other  occasion,  are  Christian  hearts  so 
united,  their  sympathies  so  active,  their  interests  so  mutual,  their 
affections  so  cordial,  their  forgivenesses  so  free,  their  criminations 
so  few,  and  their  generosities  so  unrestrained,  as  when  they  kneel 
around  the  communion  altar.  The  sa?ictifying  influences  of  this 
holy  ordinance  can  easily  be  inferred,  but  not  here  discussed. 

Such,  then,  are  the  Educational  and  Sacramental  ideas  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.  They  lead,  as  you  perceive,  not  only  into  the 
outer  courts  of  God's  sanctuary,  but  into  the  holy  of  holies.     They 


CLOSING    REMARKS.  33! 

kindle  a  divine  glow  anfl  ardor  which  thaw  all  world-frost  and  s]>ir- 
itual  torpor  that  threaten  incessantly  to  chill  the  life  of  Christ  in 
the  soul.  Naturalists  inform  us  that  the  deeper  we  descend  into  the 
earth,  the  warmer  it  becomes.  How  true  this  maxim  is  we  cannot 
say  ;  for  they  have  not  gone  deep  enough  to  determine.  Like 
many  others  of  their  maxims,  it  rests  on  assumption.  But  this  we 
can  positively  affirm,  that  the  deeper  we  go  into  these  sacred  mys- 
teries the  warmer  it  becomes,  for  they  enfold  the  very  heart  of 
Christ.  They  deliver  from  that  legalism  which  keeps  the  believer 
in  the  mere  vestibule  of  this  holy  sanctuary,  where  the  winds  are 
cold,  coming  as  they  do  from  the  icy  tops  of  Sinai,  and  bringing 
nothing  but  death  and  destruction.  But  entering  by  faith  into  this 
holy  tabernacle  of  the  Lord,  we  have  all  the  riches  which  the 
Father's  infinite  love  and  compassion  have  devised  for  His  children  ; 
which  the  Eternal  Son  has  procured  for  them  by  His  innocent  suffer- 
ings and  death,  and  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  offering  and  is  ready 
to  make  over  to  them.  Here  the  table  is  spread  with  ''milk  and 
wine,"  with  "  marrow  and  fatness;"  and  the  invitation  is:  "Eat, 
O  friends;  drink,  yea,  drink  al)undantly,  O  beloved." 

The  lateness  of  the  hour  prevented  any  discussion. 

Dr.  Seiss  moved  that  the  hearty  thanks  of  this  Diet  be  extended 
to  the  pastor  and  congregation  of  St.  Matthew's  church  for  their 
kindness  to  the  Diet.     Adopted. 

Dr.  Seiss  moved  that  the  Secretaries  be  tlirected  to  procure  the 
papers  read,  and  to  make  provision,  if  possible,  for  their  publica- 
tion.    Adopted. 

The  subject  of  making  provision  for  another  Diet  was  then  intro- 
duced as  follows : 

REMARKS  OF   REV.  J.   A.  SEISS,!).  IX     {Gent-uil  Coundl.) 

Mr.  President :  As  there  is  a  disposition  to  adjourn  finally  to- 
night, and  members  are  beginning  to  retire,  I  have  a  matter  of 
business  which  I  should  like  to  bring  forward  before  our  numbers 
are  further  diminished. 

We  have  had  a  Diet.     What  was  doubtful  and  uncertain  a  (<t\v 


332  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

days   ago,  has  become  fixed,  and  passed  into  history.     We  now 
have  some  practical  idea  of  a  free  congress  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 
It  is   a  matter  of  some  worth   that  such  a  convention  could  be  or- 
ganized and  successfuly  carried  through.     It  is  a  point  gained  for 
our  common  cause.     And  it  seems  to  be  conceded  that  good  has 
been  accomplished  by  our  coming  together  in  this  way.     Separated 
for  a  decade  of  years,  it  has  been  a  pleasant  thing  to  see   each 
other's  faces,  hear  each  other's  voices,  grasp  each  other's  hands,  and 
make  a  little  comparison  of  views  on  given  topics.     Though  not 
one  in  all  things,  the  meeting  has  been  something  of  an  event  to  be 
remembered.     If  it  has  not  been  to  the  full  what  might  have  been 
desired,  I  have  heard  but  one  sentiment  concerning  it,  and  that  is 
one  of  gratification  and  pleasure.     The  nature  of  the  transactions, 
what  has  been  read  and  said,  the  questions  which  have  been  asked 
and  answered,  the  searchings  for  truth  that  have  been  evinced,  and 
the  patient  and  friendly  manner  in  which  matters  of  great  moment 
have  been  presented  and  talked  over,  must  serve  to  lift  us  in  each 
other's  esteem,  to  reflect  credit  upon  our  Church,  to  sow  seeds  of 
good  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  those  in  attendanc  e,  and  to  effect 
quiet  plantings  here  and  there  which  will  grow,  and  bloom,  and 
bring  forth  their  fruits  of  blessing  in  after  days. 

The  attempt  to  form  and  carry  through  this  Diet,  was  something 
of  a  novelty  and  an  experiment.  It  involved  matters  of  difficulty 
and  delicacy.  It  necessarily  had  to  be  on  a  limited  scale,  embrac- 
ing only  the  most  accessible  men,  to  be  assigned  prominent  parts. 
That  there  are  many  good  and  able  men  whom  it  would  have  been 
a  pleasure  to  hear,  is  frankly  admitted ;  but  a  selection  had  to  be 
made,  and  that  selection  was  prudentially  limited  to  a  territory  not 
exceeding  300  miles.  The  best  was  done  which,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances, was  thought  most  sure  of  making  tlf?  attempt  successful. 
The  result  has  been  what  we  may  now  pronounce  a  success.  So  far 
as  I  have  learned,  there  is  a  common  agreement  that  this  Diet  has 
.been  a  good  thing.   . 


CLOSING    REMARKS.  333 

It  has  therefore  occurred  to  me  that  it  would  perhaps  be  well, 
before  finally  adjourning,  to  give  some  expression,  and  to  make 
some  incipient  provision,  respecting  a  repetition,  on  a  wider  scale, 
at  some  future  time,  of  what  we  have  here  had.  I  have  thought 
that  we  might  at  least  designate  a  committee  to  arrange  for  another 
Diet,  on  the  same  general  plan  as  this ;  leaving  it  to  them  to  deter- 
mine as  best  they  can,  by  conference  with  men  in  different  sections 
of  the  Church,  and  by  watching  the  indications,  when,  where,  and 
how,  it  shall  be  held,  and  also  to  make  up  for  it  a  full  programme 
in  advance.  I  would  make  a  motion  to  this  effect,  save  that  I  do 
not  wish  to  press  the  suggestion  if  there  is  not  a  general  sentiment 
in  favor  of  it.  To  make  it,  only  to  be  resisted  and  broken  down, 
would  be  worse  than  not  to  have  it  made  at  all.  I  would,  therefore, 
with  the  permission  of  the  chair,  very  much  like  to  have  some 
informal  expression  of  opinion  on  the  subject ;  feeling,  for  my  own 
part,  that  it  would  be  eminently  proper  for  us,  here  and  now, 
before  separating,  unitedly  to  take  the  initiative  for  another  Diet, 
say  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  so,  and  thus  give  the  impulse  for  a 
succession  of  Diets,  in  which  to  dig  after  a  right  understanding  of 
the  truth,  for  the  general  upbuilding  of  ourselves  and  churches  in 
the  knowledge  of  our  doctrines  and  of  each  other,  and  of  those 
strong  foundations  on  which  our  cause  rests. 

As  there  were  calls  from  all  sides  that  the  suggestion  accorded 
with  the  feeling  of  those  present,  it  was  moved  by  Dr.  Seiss,  and 
seconded  by  Dr.  Brown,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  make 
provision  for  another  Diet.     Adopted  unanimously. 

After  some  discussion  as  to  how  the  committee  should  be  consti- 
tuted, it  was  finally  resolved  that  the  committee  consist  of  Drs. 
Morris  and  Seiss,  with  power  to  add  a  third. 

Dr.  Conrad  moved  that  the  thanks  of  the  Diet  be  returned  to  the 
reporters  of  the  city  papers.     Adopted. 

Dr.  Brown  moved  that  the  thanks  of  the  Diet  be  returned  to  its 
officers.     Adopted. 


334  FREE    LUTHERAN    DIET. 

REMARKS  OF   REV.  F.  W.  CONRAD,  D.  D.     {General  Synod.) 

Mr.  President  :  Before  we  separate,  I  feel  impelled  to  give  ex. 
pression  to  the  impressions  made  upon  me  during  the  sessions  of 
this  Diet.  When  it  was  first  broached,  I  doubted  whether  it  would 
be  held  ;  when  I  was  requested,  months  ago,  to  read  a  paper  before 
it,  I  consented  with  no  little  hesitancy,  and  when  at  last  the  time 
and  place  of  its  meeting  were  announced,  I  feared  that  it  n)ight 
prove  a  failure.  But  the  Diet  has  been  held  and  is  about  to  ad- 
journ, and  I  desire  to  confess  that  my  doubts  and  fears  have  been 
dispelled,  and  that  the  expectations  of  the  most  sanguine  have  been 
fully  realized.  From  the  evidence  furnished  by  its  proceedings  and 
attendance  from  day  to  day,  it  must  be  pronounced  a  success,  and 
I  congratulate  you,  Mr.  President,  as  its  projector,  and  your  worthy 
colleague,  upon  its  character  and  results. 

The  importance  of  the  subjects  treated  and  discussed ;  the 
learning,  research  and  ability  displayed ;  the  courtesy  extended  ; 
the  Christian  spirit  manifested,  and  the  fraternal  greetings  ex- 
changed, reflected  credit  upon  all  who  participated  in  it,  and  could 
not  fail  to  make  a  favorable  impression  upon  those  who  attended  its 
sessions. 

Some  of  those  present  I  have  known  many  years,  with  others 
I  have  been  upon  the  most  intimate  terms  of  friendship,  and  the 
privilege  of  meeting  and  taking  counsel  with  them  in  this  Diet,  has 
been  to  me  a  source  of  no  ordinary  gratification.  Notwithstanding 
the  separation  which  left  some  of  us  in  the  General  Synod,  and  led 
others  into  the  General  Council,  our  differences  have  not  wholly 
schismatized  our  hearts,  which  are  still  bound  together  by  the  tie  of 
a  common  ecclesiastical  lineage,  and  a  common  Christian  faith. 
There  is  yet  a  goodly  number  in  both  bodies,  who  fully  realize  that 
"we  be  brethren,"  and  who,  in  obedience  to  the  apostolic  injunc- 
tion: "Let  brotherly  love  continue,"  still  love  one  another  with 
pure  hearts  fervently. 

The  Diet  was  a  voluntary  and  unrepresentative  assemblage  of  Lu- 


CLOSIN(;    REMARKS.  335 

theran  ministers.  Each  one  was  at  full  liberty  to  utter  his  senti- 
ments, for  which  he  alone  is  responsible.  It  was  not  proposed  to 
present  the  points  of  difference  between  us.  and  in  so  far  as  such 
points  were  introduced  in  the  discussions,  they  were  merely  inci- 
dental. Nor  was  it  designed  for  the  promotion  of  organic  union 
in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  hence  that  subject  was  neither  as- 
signed to  a  reader  nor  introduced  into  the  discussions.  But  if 
the  breaches  in  the  walls  of  Zion  are  ever  to  be  closed,  and  its 
divided  parts  united  in  "one  fold"  under  "one  Shepherd,"  it 
will  be  indispensable  that  the  divisions  now  existing  in  the  different 
Christian  denominations  be  first  healed,  before  a  general  union  be- 
tween them  can  take  place.  The  harmonizing  of  the  differences 
dividing  the  Lutheran  Church,  becomes,  therefore,  the  pre-requi- 
site  to  the  union  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  and  the  union  of  Pro- 
testantism will  be  the  precursor  of  the  consolidation  of  Christen- 
dom. 

The  divisions  in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  America  have  had  their 
occasions  and  their  causes,  and  her  union,  whenever  it  may  occur, 
will  also  have  its  occasions  and  causes.  And  while  the  signs  in  the 
ecclesiastical  heavens  may  not  augur  that  the  "set  time"  for  the  in 
auguration  of  a  movement  to  unite  the  different  parts  in  this  coun- 
try has  come,  may  we  not  cherish  the  hope  that  the  holding  of  this 
Diet  will  prove  at  least  an  occasion  which  may  lead,  in  due  time,  to 
the  adoption  of  such  means  and  measures  as  shall,  with  God's  bless- 
ing, eventually  culminate  in  the  organic  union  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  ? 

A  few  remarks  were  then  made  by  Dr.  Brown. 
The    President    announced  that   a  motion    to  adjourn  was   in 
order.     After  a  long  pause,  the  motion  was  at  length  made   and 
adopted ;    and  the  first  Free    Diet   of    the    Lutheran    Church    in 
America,  adjourned  sine  die  after  prayer  by  its  President. 

H.  E.  JACOBS, 
W.  M.  BAUM, 

Secretaries. 


Il^DEX  OF  PEESOKS. 


Acrelius,  I.,  107,  no. 

Albert,  L.  E.,  77,  171,  178,  272. 

Albert,  Prince,  184. 

Alexandra,  Princess,  184 

Anstadt,  P.,  119. 

Arndt,  J.,  95,  129,  133,  254. 

Augustine,  224,  293. 

Bacon,  257. 

Baetes,  W.,  115. 

Eager,  J.  G.,  43,  135. 

Baird,  R.,  125. 

Baker,  J.  C,  115. 

Bancroft,  G.,  113. 

Baum,  W.  M.,  g,  10,  11,  335. 

Baumgarten,  65. 

Baxter,  129,  326. 

Bergman,  C.  F.,  113. 

Bergman,  J.  E.,  113. 

Bernheim,  G.  D.,  107. 

Beza,  15,  227. 

Billican,  38. 

Bolzius,  J.  M.,  113. 

Bossuet,  185. 

Boyer,  S.  R.,  77. 

Brentz,  20. 

Brobst,  S.  K.,  119. 

Brodhead,  J.  R.,  108. 

Brown,  J.  A.,  9,  73,  79,  80,  104,  139, 195, 

274,  284,  285,  309,  312,  333. 
Briick,  Chancellor,  212. 
Brunnholtz,  P.,  113,  114,  276. 
Bucer,  21,  38,  211,  213,  214. 
Biichsel,  323. 
Bull,  Bishop,  24. 
Bunyan,  129. 
Butler,  J.  G.,Sr.,  114,  115. 

Calixtus,  40,9s,  193. 

Calovius,  95,  245,  247. 

Calvin,  15,  18,  38,  213  sq.,  227,  273,  282, 

Campanius,  no. 

Capito,  211. 

Cardwell,  24. 

Carlstadt,  35,  38. 

Cassander,  40. 

23 


Castellio,  38. 

Charles  V.,  209,  21T,  215,  239,  240. 

Chemnitz,  298,  303,  305,  307,  310. 

Chytraeus,  241. 

Coelcstinus,  240. 

Cook,  H.  S.,  177. 

Conrad,  F.  W.,  9,   72,  99,  137,  206,   272,  309, 

3'o,  333.  334- 
Conrad,  V.  L.,  97,  99. 
Cranmer,  18,  19,  20,  23,  232. 

Dale,  R.  W.,  264. 
D'Aubigne,  63,  232. 
Diehl,  G.,  10,  292,  312. 
Doddridge,  129. 
Dorer,  215. 
Dreier,  193. 
Drisius,  109. 
Duchee,  287,  288. 
Duraeus,  40. 
Dylander,  no. 

Eck,  230. 
Edwards,  129. 
Eichelberger,  L..  118. 
Eliot,  no. 
Emery,  W.  S.,  103. 
Endress,  C.,  115. 
Erasmus,  40,  202. 

Falkner,  Justus,  no,  in,  112,  276. 
Farel,  15,  227. 
Fink,  R.  A.,  102. 
Finley,  Pres't,  287. 
Flacius,  95. 
Francis,  J.  W.,  115. 
Francke,  A.  H.,  95,  278. 
Frederick  III.,  Elector,  15,  228. 
Frick,  W.  K.,  163. 


Geissenhainer,  F.  W.,  Sr.,  114. 
Geissinger,  D.  H.,  242. 
George  of  Brandenburg,  240. 
Gerhard,  John,  55,  129,  298,  307,  310. 
'  Giessler,  228. 

(337) 


338 


INDEX   OF   PERSONS. 


Goering,  J.,  43,  114,  115. 
Goetwater,  J.  E.,  109. 
Graeber,  J.  G.,  i:S. 
Greenwald,  E.,  9,  iiS,  242,  243. 
Grob,  J.,  114. 
Gronau,  I.  C,  113. 

Hallam,  1S2. 

Hamilton,  1S2. 

Handschuh,  J.  F.,  113,  114,  276. 

Hardwick,  21. 

Hare,  185. 

Hartwig,  J.  C,  114,  158. 

Haz'ilius,  E.  L.,  45,  107,  117,  119,  130. 

Hedio,  :^ii. 

Heintzelmnnn,  J.  D.  M.,  113,  276. 

Helmulh,  J.  C.  F.,  43,  108, 113,  114,  115,  118, 

135- 
Henry  Vni.,  17. 
Henkel,  P.  115. 
Herberger,  129. 
Herbst,  J.,  118. 
Hollazius,  247. 
Hontheim,  40. 
Hooker,  184. 
Horneius,  193. 

Inglis,  287. 

Jacobs,  H.  E.,  9,  lo,  107,  289,  335. 
John,  Elector,  216,  240. 
John,  Sigismund,  15,  228. 
Jonas,  Justus,  18,  22,  23. 
Junius,  Francis,  40. 

Kaehler,  F.  C.  C,  292. 

King,  Lord  Chancellor,  65. 

Kirk,  E.  N.,  28. 

Klinefelter,  F.,  77. 

Knoll,  112. 

Kocherthal,  112. 

Kostering,  J.  F.,  123. 

Kohler,  J.  174. 

Krauth,C.  P.  Sr.,  141. 

Krauth,  C.  P.,  9,  27,  77,  141,  199,   209,    233, 

238,  285,  289. 
Krotel,  G.  F.,  10,  176,  273. 
Kunze,  J.  C,  43,  44,  114,  113,   135,  16S. 
Kurtz,  B.  125,  137. 
Kurtz,  J,  D.,  43,  114,  116. 
Kurtz,  J.  N.,  43,  113,  114,  276. 
Kurtz,  W.,  43,  III, 

Laud,  31. 

Latermann,  193. 

Laurence,  16,  17,  20. 

Lintner,  G.  A.,  iiS. 

Lochman,  G.,  114,  115,  116,  134. 


Lohe,  126. 

Loscher,  276,  278. 

Luther,  D.,  162,  165,  177. 

Luther,  Dr.  Martin,  16,  17,  21,  22,  33,^77., 
63.  72,  74,  94,  95,  96,  98,  180,  182.  183,  184, 
193,  201,206  jyy.,  214  jy.jzao,  229  jy.,  23s, 
238  sgq.^  248,  2,3,  292,  294,  297,  298,  303, 
304. 

Mann,  W.   J.,  10,  96,  98,  176,  178,  237,   275, 

276,  284,  285,  309,  312. 
Martin,  J.  N.,  115. 
Mason,  J.  M.,  40. 
Megapolensis,  log. 
Melanchthon,  16,  17,  i<)sgq.,  94,  95,   180,  193, 

196,  201,  202,   206  sgq.,   213,   218.  220,  223, 

229  sg.,  233,  236, 238  sg.,  302, 
Melsheimer,  113, 
Miller,  J,  115. 
Miller,  R.  J.,  127. 
Miller,  S.,  115. 
Moehlcr,  185. 

Morris,  J.  G  ,9, 10,  13,  15,  118,  283,  284. 
Miiller,  H.  (Germany),  129. 
Miiller,  H.  (America),  114. 
Muller,  J.  T.,  196. 
Muhlenberg,  H.  E.,  43,  114,  115. 
Muhlenberg,  H.  M.,  4;;,  93,  100,  iii,  113,  132, 

16S,  273,  276,  277,  278,  286. 
Muhlenberg,  P.,  115,  289. 

Nyberg,  iii. 

OEcolampadius,  34. 
Olevianus,  232. 

Pallavicini,  182. 

Palmer,  183. 

Parker,  24. 

Passavant,  W.  A..  118. 

Penn,  William,  no,  166. 

Peters,  R.,  286,  287,  28S,  290. 

Pfaff,  40. 

Philip  of  Hesse,  213,  234,  240. 

Plitt,  J.  K.,  :72. 

Pohlman,  H.  N.,  113. 

Pontanus,  240. 

Price,  N.  1\L,  309. 

Proctor,  20. 

Pusey,  182. 

Quenstedt,  244,  247, 

Rath,  J.  B.,  172. 
Reinmiind,  J.  F.,  107,  163. 
Repass,  S.  A.,  9,  162. 
Reynolds,  W.  M.,  107,  108. 
Romeyn,  J.  B.,  40. 
Rosenmiller,  D.  P.,  70,  96,  144. 


INDEX   OF    PERSONS. 


339 


Riickert,  239. 
Kudman,  no. 

Sadtlcr,  B.,  70,  176. 

Sandin,  114. 

Schaefier,  C.  W.,  14,  70,  107,  194,  199. 

Schaeffer,  D.  F.  108,  118. 

Schaeffer,  F.  D.,  114. 

SchafF,  P.,  15,  20,  25,  183,  192,  227,  228,  233. 

Schaum,  J,  H.,  113,  114,  132. 

Schlatter,  287. 

Schmid,  H.  316. 

Schmidt,  F.,  iig, 

Schmidt,  J.  F.,  43,    113,   114,  113,  118,  135. 

Schmucker,  J.  G.,  114,  115,  iiS. 

Schmucker,  S.  S.,  107,118,  119,  127. 

Schnepf,  235. 

Schultze,  E.,  113,  276. 

Scriver,  129. 

Seckendorl",  22. 

Seiss,  J.  A.,  9,  26,   163,    180,   264,   286,  331, 

333' 
Short,  23. 

Spaeth,  A.,  1C3,  176,  285. 
Spalatin,  232. 

Spener,  95,  193,  277,  2S0,  326. 
Sprague,  W.  B.,  108,  114,  115. 
Sprecher,  S.,  99. 
Stark,  254. 
Steinhoefer,  30. 
Stoever,  M.  L.,  107. 
Stork,  C.  A.,  10,  163,  257. 


Stork,  C.  A.  G.,  Its. 
Strebeck,  G.,  44,  115,  134. 
Streit,  C,  43,  114. 
Strobel,  P.  A.,  107. 

Tennant,  287. 
Tetzel,  35. 
Tischendorr,  202, 
Torkillus,  R.,  no. 
Turretin,  40. 

Ursinus,  232. 

Valentine,  M.,  9,  145,  163,  164. 
Victoria,  Queen,  184. 
Vitus,  Thcodorus,  235. 

Walker,  F.,113. 

Wedekind,  A.  C.,  10,  101,313. 

Weldcn,  C.  F.,  28S. 

Wesley,  29,  129. 

Weyl,  C,  119. 

Whetstone,  A.  M.,  206. 

Whitefield,  29,  286,  287,  290. 

Whittingham,  25. 

Wicel,  40. 

Wicksel,  281. 

Wigand,  304. 

Wildbahn,  C.  F.,  114,  136, 

Wrangle,  Von,  no,  iii,  287. 

Zinzendorf,  30,  in,  232,  279. 
Zwingli,  35,  sgg,  202,  211,  213,  215,  234,  273 
282,  328. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  Al^D  PLACES. 


Absolution,  224,  281. 
Academies,  Church,  i6r. 
Agnosticism,  60. 
Agreement  among  Christians,  81. 

among  Lutherans  in  America,  82, 
97,  102,  105. 
Albany,  N.  V.,  no,  276. 
Altar  Fellowship,  48,  73,  76. 

Principles  of,  50. 
^w^^r/Vrt,  Social  Condition  of,  278. 
Anglican  Church, 

Book  of  Common  Prayer,  16,  21,  184, 

264. 
Homilies  of,  16. 

Thirty-nine  Articles  of,  15^17^.,  184,202, 
227,  232. 
^/o/(7^_y  of  Augsburg  Confession,  131,  324. 
Arminianisjn,  30. 
Articles,  Edwardine.   21  sgq. 

Thirty-nine,  see  Anglican  Church, 
Twenty-five  of,  Methodists,  26,  232. 
Associate  Reformed,  40. 
Augsburg  Confession, 
Invariata,  282. 
Variata,  213,  231,  234,  236. 
Oldest  of  Modern  Confessions,  85. 
Relation  to  Oecumenical  Creeds,  207. 
Characteristics  of,  206  sgq. 
Relation  of  Luther  to,  208  sgq.,  230. 

of  Melanchthon   to,   209  sgq., 
233- 
Correspondence    concerning,    209,    237, 

238, 
Changes  in,  196,  201. 
Interpretation  of,  96. 
Subscripliou  to,  86,  96,  103,  126  sq.,  196, 

202,  2S2. 
Amer.  Recension  of,  128,  132. 
and  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  15  sqq. 
The  Confession   of  the  Reformed   and 

Union  Churches  of  Germany,  15. 
On  Ministry,  292. 
On  Power  of  Keys,  303. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  114. 

Baptism,  Age  of  Subjects  of,  135. 

Lutheran  Doctrine  of,   192,  222,  246, 
320  sqq. 


Baptist  Churches,  29,  49. 

Reformed,  31. 
Bethlehem,  Pa.,  172, 177. 
Book  0/  Co^nmon  Prayer,  21,  23. 
Book  0/  Concord,  131,  198,  201,  203. 

Call  to  the  Ministry,  292  sqq.,  309  sqq. 
Cahiinists,  54,  55. 
Carolinas,  Lutherans  in,  113,  114. 
Catechetical  Instruction,   88,    130,   163,    177, 

280,  325. 
Catechism,  Luther's  Small,  88,   96,  130,  163, 

177,  282,  325. 
Catechism ,  Heidelberg,  202,  232. 
Catholic,  the  term  defined,  226. 
Catholic  Chtirch  not  visible,  59. 
Catholicity  of  Augsburg  Confession,  226  sqq. 
Charleston,  S.  C,  115. 
Chillicothe,   O.,  117. 
Christianity  and  Science,  146. 
Ciiurclt,  Ancient,  and  Close  Communion,  65. 
Church,  Catholic  or  Invisible,  55. 
CItiirch,  Anglican,  13   sqq.,  29,  no,  112,  184, 
285  sqq. 

Baptist,  29. 

Calvinistic-Reformed,  29. 

Congregational,  29,  49,  189. 

Cumberland  Presbyterian,  29. 

Dutch  Reformed,  29. 

Evangelical  Lutheran,  28. 

French  Reformed,  29. 

Friends,  31. 

German  Reformed,  29. 

Greek  Orthodox,  28. 

Independents,  29. 

Mennonite,  29. 

Methodist,  30. 

Moravian,  30. 

Roman  Catholic,  28. 
Church  Order  and  Spirituality,  259. 
Ch  u  rch  -i'ear,  135. 
"Churchmen,'^  42,  183  sq.,  197. 
Coburg,  208. 

Colleges,  Lutheran,  by  Nationalities,  151. 
Multiplication  of,  152. 
Relation  of,  to  Theological  Seminar- 
ies, 154. 
Columbia  College,  114. 


(341) 


342 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS   AND    PLACES. 


Communion ,  Close,  64  sqq. 

Interdenominational,  43  sqq.,  71. 
Unionistic,  40. 
Communion  of  Saints,  259,  262,  330. 
Conferences,  Pastoral,  281. 
Confession,  Augsburg,  see  Augsburg    Confes- 
sion. 
Basle,  202. 
French,  202. 
Helvetic,  2C2. 
Netherlands,  202. 
Second  Helvetic,  202. 
Tetrapolitan,  202,  211. 
Zurich,  202. 

Zwingli's,  38,  202,  211,  234. 
Confession  before  Communion,  43,  280  sq. 
Confession,  Private,  224,  280. 
Confessional   Position   of  Lutheran   Church, 
47,  194- 
In  America,  130. 
Confirmation,  88,  281,  327. 
Confutation,   Romish,  of   Augsburg   Confes- 
sion," 232,  236. 
Congregational  Churches ,  29,  49,  i8g. 
Consecration  of  Bishops,  2S9 
Concensus  Repctitzis,  193. 
Conservatism ,  True,  228. 

Ultra,  of  Rome,  34. 
Constitution,  Church,  132,  279. 
Consubstantiation ,  192,  221. 
Conversion,  321. 

Co-operation,  Ecclesiastical.  90  sqq. 
Council  of  Trent,  Decrees  of,  85. 
Creed,  Relation  of  to  Faith,  203. 
Creeds  Qicumenical  and  Augsburg  Confession, 
207,  219,  227. 

Danish  Immigration,  124. 
Decorah,  la,,  126. 

Denmark,  Lutheran  Churches  in,  288. 
Denominations,  Definition  of,  27. 

Classification  of,  28. 
Names  of,  31. 

Discrimination  between,  33, 
52- 
Denominations ,  Evangelical,  49. 

True  churches,  73. 

"Other,"  74,  77. 

Christian  zeal  in,  74,    77,  78, 

198. 
Responsibility  for,    189,  I97> 

203,  204. 
in  Germany  and  America   in 
i8th  Century,  278. 
Denominationalism,  Origin  of,  34. 
Fruits  of,  41, 
Depravity,  Total,  324. 


Development  of  Lutheran  church  in  America, 

124. 
Dickinson  College,  115,  155. 
Diet,  Call  for,  9. 

Members  of,  11. 
Opening  of,  13. 
Provision  for  Second,  333. 
Adjournment  of,  335. 
Discipline,  Church,  280. 
Divisions,  Ecclesiastical,    Responsibllty    for 

66,  73,  198",  203,  204. 
Doctrinal  Position   of  Lutherans  in  America, 

126  sq.,  282. 
Doctrine  and  Spirituality,  248,  251. 

Unity  in,  essential  to  Church  Union, 
51,  68,  17?,  177. 
Donatism,  charge  of,  62  sq 
Dort,  Synod  of.  Decrees,  108. 
Dutch  Lutherans,  108  sq.,  124,  126,  276. 

EastoJi,  Pa.,  172, 
Ebenezer,  Ga.,  113,  115. 

Education,  in  Lutheran  Church  in  the  United 
States,  145  sq  . 
,  Secularization  of,  149. 
True  Standard  of,  150. 
,  and  Church  Growth,  156. 
,  Theological,  156  sqq. 
,  Female,  160. 
and  the  State,  i6r. 
,  of  Children  of  Church,  113,  114, 
116,  163,  280,  325  sq. 
Educational  Idea,  of  Lutheran  Church  313  sqq. 
English  Congregations  formed,  115. 
English  Language  and  Lutheran  church,  63, 
167. 
,  introduced  into  Church  Service,  m, 
115,  \f,T  sq.,  173,  174. 
Episcopacy,  Lutheran,  187. 
Episcopalians,  29,  49,93,   m,  I'Si   127,175, 

189,  289,  sqq. 
Epistle  for  the  Day,  133,  134,  281. 
Evangelical  Alliance,  41. 
Evangelical  Denominations,  49. 
Exchisivencss,  Charge  of,  63. 

Faith,  Rule  of,  47,  200. 

Fallibility  a-Tid  Failure  distinguished,  56,  199. 

Fa?iaticism,  34. 

Fathers  of  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  276. 

Felloivship,  Interdenominational,  39,  73,  76. 

,  Official,  Results  of,  67. 
Foreign  Missions,  Co-operation  in,  92. 
Forms,  Liturgical,  257  sqq. 

,  Dissimilarity    in,    no    hindrance    to 
Church  Union,  89,  177. 
Uniformity  of,  desirable,  175. 


INDEX   OF   S.UDJECTS   AND    PLACES. 


343 


Forms,  in  Euthcran  Church  in  United  States, 

87,  132,  278  sq.,  281. 
Fonuula  0/  Concord,  89, 97,  131,  202,  227,  237. 
Franklin  College.,  115,  151  . 
Friends,  31,  39. 

Ft.  Wayne,  Ind.,  99,  121,  122,  138,  144. 
General  Council,  80,  99,  122,  158,  286,  334. 
General  Synod,  80,  117,  120,  137,  140, 141,  143, 

157.  158,  272,  324,  334. 
General  Synod  (South),  80,  99,  122,  158. 
Georgia,  Lutheran  Church  in,  132,  133,  135. 
German  Immigration,  112,  124,  125,  151,  166, 

276. 
Gcrtnan  Language,  and  English,  63,  116,  167, 

sqq. 
Germany,  Social  Condition  of,  278. 
Germanto^vn,  Pa.,  no,  114. 
Gettysburg,  Pa.,  114,  118,  156. 
Goettingen,  University  of,  277. 
Gospel  for  the  Day,  733,  134,  iZi. 
Government,  Church,  Forms  of,  iSi. 
Gown,  Clerical,  178. 
Greek  Orthodox  Cliurch,  28,  85. 

Hagerstown,  Md,,  114,  117. 

Halle  Records,  107  sqq.,  280,  281,  287,  290, 

Halle,  University  of,  192,  277. 

Hanover,  Pa.,  115. 

Harrisburg,  Pa.,  114. 

Hartivick  Seminary,  117,  151. 

Harziard  College,  155. 

Helmsfaedt,  University  of,  192. 

Heresy,  64. 

Herrnhuthers,  30. 

High    Cliurch  Anglicans ,  31,  42,  183  sq.,  188, 

197. 
High  Mass,  132. 
Hymn-Books,  English,  134. 

Immigration,  Statistics  of,  124. 
Impanation,  221. 
Independents,  29,  39. 
Indifferentism,  41,  42,  188,  277. 
Infallibility,  Charge  of,  55  sq.,  195  sq.,  199. 

Jatisenists ,  31. 
yesuits,  31. 

Judgment,  Private,  Right  of,  33. 
yustiftcation  iJ'j'/'rt/V/j,  Endangered  hy  Union- 
ism, 48. 
,  Held  by  all  Lutherans,  86. 
,  Repudiated  by  High  Churchmen, 
184,  185. 
Renounced  by  False  Spirituality, 

249. 
,  As  set  forth  in  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, 2l8. 


Keys,  Power  of,  302. 

Laity,  Education  of,  162. 

,  Part  of,  in  Call   of  Minister,  304,  3CC, 

307- 
Lancaster,  Fa.,  no,  in,  n4,  157,  17?. 
Language  and  Faith,  (1%,  n6. 

,  in  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  £8, 

116,  165  sqq  ,  279,  2gi. 
,  Separation  on   Basis  of,    i53   iqq., 
171. 
Latitudinarianism ,  42. 
Laying  on  0/  Hands,  297. 
Lay  Reading,  127. 
Lebanon,  Pa.,  114,  177. 
Lebanon,  O.,  117. 
Leipsic,  University  of,  193. 
Li/e,  as  a  Test  of  Faith,  74,  78. 
Littlestotvn,  Pa.,  136. 
Liturgical  Forms,  See  Forms. 
Liturgies,  43-s,  132-4,  272,  See  also  Orders  of 

Service. 
Loonenburgh,  N.  Y.,  113. 
Lord's  Supper,  36  sqq.,  53  sq.,  327  sgq. 

,  Doctrine  of,  Fundamental,  53, 

98,  213. 
,  Lutheran  Doctrine  of,  71,97, 

220,  246,  328. 
,  Lutheran  Doctrine  of,  Misrep- 
resented, 180,  192,  320. 
,  Doctrine  of  Denominations,  71, 

72. 
,  Agrcementconcerning,g7,io2. 
,  Condemning  clause  of   Augs- 
burg Confession  concerning, 
213. 
,  Romish  view  of  Aiigburg  Con- 
fession on,  213,  236. 
,  Swiss  view  of  Augsburg  Con- 
fession on, 213. 
,  Analogy   between,  and    Bap- 
tism, 76,  79. 
Losses,  Annual,  of  Lutheran  Church,  125. 
Lutheran,  the  Name,  70,  8?. 
Lutheran  Catechism  in  England,  18,  21. 
Lutheran  Church,  Cen'.re  of,  28. 

,  Dc  Facto,  41  sqq, 
,  Dc  Jure,  46  sqq. 
,  a  Bihlical  Church,  47. 
,  the  Church  of  Faith,  47. 
,  Confessional  Position  of,  47. 
,  Divine  Origin   and  Neces- 
sity of,  48. 
,  Objections      against,     an- 
swered, 51  sqq. 
,  an  Educating  Church,  148, 
324  sqq. 


344 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS   AND   PLACES. 


Lutheran  Church,  not  a  Sect,  i88,  207. 

,  older  than  the   Denomina- 
tions, 189. 
,  Truth  fully  taught  by,  186, 

191. 
,  a  true  Church,  186,  191. 
.Organization  of  in  America, 
276. 
and  Christian  Union,  335. 
Lutheran  Forms  of  Church  Government,  181. 
Lutheranism  not  co-extensive  with  Christian- 
ity, 84. 
,  Degrees  of,  83. 
,  Defined,  277. 
,  of  Fathers,  276  sqq. 
,  Decline  of,  128,  277,  315. 
,  Revival  of,  130,  164,  315. 
Luthera?!s,  in  America,    Agreement   among, 
81,  100-103. 
,  and  Nationality,  83. 
,  Diversity  among,  88. 
,  Origin  of,  188. 

,  Relation  to  Martin  Luther,  182  sq. 
,  not  guilty  of   Schism,    i86,    194, 

197,  207. 
,  not  Heretics,  186,  194. 
,  not  a  Sect,  188,  207. 
,  Efforts  of,    to  preserve  External 
Unity,  186,  207. 

Maine,  Lutherans  in,  113. 
Marburg  Articles,  208. 

,  Conference,  35,  214,  215. 
Marshal,  Wis.,  158. 
Maryland,  Lutherans  in,  113 
Means  0/  Grace,  192,  246,  277,  313. 
Mendota,  III.,  158. 
Mennonites,  29. 
Ministerial  Sessions,  280. 
Minisierium,  see  Synod. 
Ministry,  Divine  Institution  of,  87,  295  sqq. 

,  Call  to,  292  sqq. 

,  Defined,  292. 

,  Distinguished  from  Spiritual  Priest- 
hood, 294. 

,  Demission  of,  309. 

,  Deposition  from,  309. 
Missions,  117,281. 

Montgomery  county.  Pa.,  iii,   T12,  114,  276. 
Montgomery  county,  O.,  117. 
Moravians,  30,  228,232. 
Muhlenberg  College,  70. 
Mystical  Union,  243  sqq. 

Nantes,  Edict  of,  165. 
Nationality  a.nA  Faith,  83  sqq. 
Newbern,  N.  C,  112. 
Newburgh,  N.  V.,  112. 


A't;7v  Hanover,  113. 

Nc'7u  Market,  Va.,  117. 

New  Measttres,  88,  129. 

New  York,  Lutherans   in,  io8,  109,  iii,   112, 

114  sq.,  124,  276. 
North  Carolina,  115. 

Old  Lutherans,  277. 

Orders  0/ Seriiice ,  129,  133,  134. 

Ordination,  298,  302. 

,  administered  by  Swedish  pastors,  in. 
Organization  of  Lutheran  Church  in  America, 

132,  276,  279. 
Orthodox ,  Defined,  219. 

,  and  Spirituality,  252. 
Orthodoxism,  ■2'ji),  283. 

Pennsylvania,  first  Lutheran  Church  in,  no. 
,  Germans  in,  1 13. 
See  Synods. 
Pennsylvania  College,  107,  135,  145,  151. 
Philadelphia,  Pa.,   9,   10,  iii,  113,    114,  115, 

132,  285,  286. 
Pietism,  29,  128,  277,  279,  283. 
Piety,  313  sqq. 
Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  122. 
Prayer,  a  Spiritual  Sacrifice,  293. 
,  and  Spirituality,  253. 
,  Extemporanous,  265,  267,  273, 
,  Forms  of,  258,  273.     See  Forms  and 

Orders  of  Service. 
,  Public,  of  Women,  284. 
Preaching,  of  the  Fathers,  135,  279,  280, 
Presbyterian  Form  of  Government,  279. 
Presbyterians,  i<j,  49,93,  175,  189,  274. 
Press,  Lutheran,  in  America,  118  sq. 
Priesthood,  293. 

,  of  Believers,  87,  294. 
Princeton  College,  287, 
Providence,  Pa.,  113. 
Public  Worship,  132,  259  sqq.,  273. 
Pulpit  Fellowship,  48,  50,  73,  76,  in,  284  sqq. 
Pulpits,  Exchange  of,  284  sqq . 
Puritans  a-nd  Liturgical  Forms,  266  jy.,  273. 

Radicalism,  34. 

,  and  the  Sacraments,  315. 
Rationalism,  42,  277. 

,  and  the  Sacraments,  315. 
Reading,  Pa.,  114,  172,  174. 
Reformed,  75,  108,  109,  128,  226,  228,  287. 

See  also  German,  Dutch,  French, 
etc. 
,  Episcopalians,  32 
,  Presbyterians,  32. 
Regeneration,  321. 
Revival  Movements,  115. 
Rochester,  N.  Y.,  122. 
Rochester,  Fa.,  120. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS  AND   PLACES. 


345 


Rock  Island^  III.,  126. 
Romanism  in  Protestantism,  59. 
Roman  Catholics,  28,  77,  86,  94,149,  187  sgg., 
226. 

Sacraments,  Defined,  316. 

,  Design  of,  317  sgq. 

,  Lutheran  Doctrine  of,  228,  250, 

314  sqq. 
,and  False  Spirituality,  250. 
See  also  Radicalism. 
Sacramental    Ideas    of    Lutheran     Church, 

313  ^19- 
Sacrifices,  Spiritual,  293. 
Salzburgers ,  113. 
SavannaJi,  Ga.y  115. 
Scandina7iia7i  Immigration ,  124. 
Schism,  27,  186,  190,  197,  215. 
Schools,  Common,  163,  164. 

,  Parochial,  164. 
Schoharie,  N.  v.,  112.      ' 
Schwabach  Articles,  201,  208,  234. 
Science  T^nA  Christianity,  146. 
Secret  Societies,  280. 
Sect  and  Sectarianism,  7,  33,  66,   67,  77-79, 

188,  190,  202,  207. 
Sensationalism ,  254. 
Separation  and  Language,  169  sqq. 
Sermons  of  Fathers ,  135  ;  see  Preaching. 
Stnalcald  Articles ,  131,  232,  297,  302. 
Socinianism,  29,  31,  39,  67,  131. 

in  Lutheran  Church,  42. 
South  Carolina,  Lutherans  in,  109.   See   Car- 

olinas,  and  Synods. 
Spires,  Edict  of,  216. 
Spirituality,  True  and  False,  243  sqq. 
State  and  Education,  149,  161. 
State  Universities,  149. 
St.  Bartholome'M,  Massacre  of,  165. 
Statistics,  114,  n8,  121-125,  iSijiS^i  'S^- 
Suhpanation,  221. 
"Substantially,''^  103,  104. 
Sunday-schools ,  129,  280. 
Swatara,  Lutherans  on  the,  113. 
S^veden,  Lutheran  Church  in,  181,  288. 
Swedish  Immigration,  124. 

,  Lutherans  on  the  Delaware,  no  sgq. 
Symbolical  Books,  126,  282.  See  Book  of  Con- 
cord. 
Syncreiis>n,  42. 
Synod,  Alleghany,  120. 

,  Ansgari,  120. 

,  Augsburg,  120. 

,  Augustana,  Swedish,  122, 126. 

,  Augustana,  Nor. -Danish,  122,  158. 

,  Canada,  122. 

,  Central  Pennsylvania,  120. 


.Synod,  East  Pennsylvania,  120. 

English  Conference  of  Mo.,  122. 
I'English  District,  of  Ohio,  120,  122. 

English,  O.,  120,  121,  122. 

Franckean,  99,  120,  121,  137,  140,  141. 

Georgia,  122. 

German  Maryland,  120. 

Hartwick,  120. 

Holston,  122. 

Illinois,  120,  121,  122. 

Indiana,  122. 

Iowa  (English),  120. 

Iowa  (German),  122,  158,  277. 

Kansas,  120. 

Kentucky,  120. 

Maryland,  117. 

Melanchlhon,  120,  140,  142. 

Miami,  120. 

Michigan,  122. 

Minnesota,  120,  121,  122. 

Mississippi,  122. 

Missouri,  122,  125,  164,  277. 

New  Jersey,  120. 

New  York,  44,  114,  116,  117,  120,  122, 
126,  138. 

North  Carolina,  114,  117,  120,  122,  127. 

North  Illinois,  120. 

North  Indiana,  120. 

Norwegian,  122,  126. 

Ohio,  45,  117,  122,  126. 

Olive  Branch,  120. 

.Pennsylvania,  44,  45, 113, 116,  117, 120, 
122,  128,   132,  138, 144,  198. 

Pittsburg,  120,  121,  122,  138,  143. 

South  Carolina,  45,  118,  120. 

South-west,  120. 

S.  W.  Virginia,  120,  122. 

S.  Illinois,  120. 

Susquehanna,  120. 

Tennessee,  117,  127. 

Texas,  120,  121,  122. 

Virginia,  120,  122. 

Wartburg,  120. 

West,  120. 

Wisconsin,  122. 

Wittenberg,  120. 
Synodical  Conference,  80,  122,  124,  131. 
Tennessee,  114. 

Testimony  of  General  Synod,  158. 
Tests  for  Fellowship,  64,  65,  71,  73,  79. 
Theological  Education,  157  sqq. 
Theological  Seminary,  Columbus,  O.,  118. 

,  Gettysburg,   Pa.,  80, 

iiS,  125,  158. 
,  Hartwick,  N.  V.,  117, 

158. 
,  Lexington,  S.  C,  118. 


346 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS    AND    PLACES. 


Theological  Se}ninary\  Newberry,  S.  C,  ii8. 
,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  25, 

IIS,  173. 276. 

,  Salem,  Va.,  118. 
Torgau  Articles,  208. 
Tractarians,  4a,  183  sq.,  1S8,  197. 
Tradition  and  Liturgies,  257. 
Transuistantiation ,  192,  328. 
Trinity,  Doctrine  of,  180. 
Tul/eAocken,'LuiheTans  on,  113. 

Uttionism,  34,  39  sgtj.,  94,  188,  277. 
Union  Prayer  Meetings,  41. 

Revivals,  41. 

Sunday-schools,  41. 

Tract,  41. 
Universalis  lit ,  42. 
University,  a  Lutheran,  93. 
University  0/  Pennsylvania,  114,  115. 


Unity,  Pre-requisitcs  to,  172. 
Urlsperger  Records,  107. 
Virginia,  Lutherans  in,  113,  116. 
West  Virginia,  114. 
IVilmington,  Del.,  114. 
Winchester,  Va.,  114. 

Wittenberg,   Formula    Concordiae,    214,    215, 
235- 
,  University  of,  148,  193,  305, 
Worms,  Edict  of,  215. 

Worshi/i,    in     Lutheran    Church,  in    United 
States,  87,  132,  273  sgg  ,  281. 
,  Liturgical  Forms  in,  257  sgg.,  273  sg. 
,  Uniformity    of,    87,    170,    175.      See 
Public  Worship. 
York,  Pa,,  no,  114,  138,  143,  144. 
Young  Men's  Christian  Associations,  41. 
Zwinglians,  54,  270. 


ON    TIIK 

SUNDAY.SCnOOL    LESSOJvS    FOR    187S. 

FULL    EXPLANATIONS    AND    LESSON    HELPS 

FOR    SCHOLARS, 

as  complete  as  other  papers  have  for  teachers,  will  be  given 
in  the  NEW  PAPER, 

SCHOLAR'S    COMPiilTIOlT, 

Issued    Jan,    1,   1878. 

Edited  by  tlie  authcjr  of  "The   Scholar's   Hand   Books."     Piil)lished  monthly 

8  pp.     SqiKire  4to.      Large  i"iaae — large  clear  tvpe.     FRESHE.ST, 

BRIGHTEST,  CHEAPEST,  aiuroniy  complete  Periodical 

for   .Sch(jlars. 

8  or  more  copies  only  15  cts.  a  year,  costing  for  a  Class  of   8  Scholars 
only  IOC.  per  month,  or  30c.  for  3  months. 


The   Sunday- School  "World, 

For    Teaclier-s. 
Containing    the    INTERN.\TIONAL    BIBLE    STUDIES,  for  1878,  by 
Rev.  John  Ham,,  D.  D.,  of  New  York.     Monthly,  by  Mail,  6oc.    .In  Clubs, 
55c.,  postage  paid. 


The  Child's  'World, 

Edited   by  the   Rev.  Richard   Newton,  D.  D. 

100  copies  per  year,  monthly,  $12  ;    semimonthly,  $24.     By  Mail,  monthly, 
$13;  semi-monthly,  $26,  postage  paid. 

toioe:^   I? eoxjoeo  i  i i 

GRADED    LESSON    PAPERS, 

FOK   SCHOLARS. 

1.  The  Advanced.    2.  The  Intermediate.    3.  The  Primary.    Price  reduced 

from  $()  to  $7.50  for  ICO  copies  a  year. 
REVIE^W    PAPERS.       (Quarterly.) 

1.  I^arge  Review  Chart,  3!  bv  5  foot.     25  cts.  each. 

2«  Superiiiteiideni's  Review  Paper,  2  cts.  each. 

,3.  Scliolars'  Review  Paper,  loo  copies,  75  cts. 

THE     SCHOLAR'S    HAND-BOOK 

On  the  INTERNATIONAL  LKS.SONS,  by  Ri.v.  FinviN  W.  Ricf,  with  ex- 
planations, &c.,  on  Lessons  from  January  to  July,  1S7S.      10  cents.      Per  100,  $8. 

rUIU.ISHED    BY   THE 

AltAERICAN'    SUSTDAV-SCHOOL    Umoia*, 

1122  Ciicstnut  St.,  Philadelphia; 

8  &   10  Bible  House,  New  York  ;    7  Beacon  St.,  Boston  ;    73  Randolph  St., 

Chicago ;    207  N.  6lh  St.,  St.  Louis, 


Popp,  JVLjiAp  &  GojvLPA^ys 

Li  %i^§   wh   M 

A    NEW    "ECONOMICAL" 

SUNDAY   SCHOOL    LIBRARY, 
"  B," 

60     VOLS.,    IGmo, 

Well  printed  on  tinted  paper,  bound  in  extra  cloth  in  uniform  style,  and  put  up 
in  a  NEAT  WOODEN  CASE  (imitation  walnut). 

16,4G2    r»a2:es.        FuHy    Illustrated. 

PRICE   29.00   ^^'^• 

Sold  only  in  Sets.  (The  price  of  the  same  books  separately  is  $59.05.) 
Average  Price  per  Vol.,  48/^  cents. 

THIS  LIBRARY  CONTAINS  WORKS  BY 

JACOB   ABBOTT,  JOHN    H.\LL,  D.D.,  GEORGE   MACDONALD, 

NORMAN    MACLEOD,  H.  H.  JESSUP,  D.D.,  ELIZABETH    STUART    PHELPS, 

AUTHOR   OF   THE   SCKoNBERG-COTTA    FAMILY,  LYMAN    ABBOTT, 

EDWARD   GARRETT,  WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  HESBA   STRETTON, 

LUCY   ELLEN    GUERNSEY,  JAMES   COMPER    GRAY,  JENNIE    HARRISON,  ETC. 

Fall  Catalogue  Sent  on  Application. 

Every  volume  is  suited  to  the  purpose. 

No  denominational  or  sectional  works  included. 

The  binding  substantial  and  attractive.  The  case  neat,  strong,  and  con- 
venient. 

The  volumes  are  numbered  and  ready  for  use,  and  50  CATALOGUES  supplied 
with  each  set. 

ECONOMICAL    S.    S.    LIBRARY, 

TlrLiforin    ^v^itll    the    above.       oO    Vols.,  X3,356    Pages, 

PRICE  24.50  ^^'^• 

The  two  libraries  have  different  books  throughout,  and  being  uniform  in 
style,  may  be  used  together  as  one. 

Together  they  contain  HO  VOLUIMillS,  30,000    FAG-XSS, 

Catalogued  and  Numbered,  in  strong  and  neat  Cases  ready  for  use,  and  furnished 
at  the  low  price  of  $5 3. 50. 

Economical    Primary  Class    S.   S.   Library. 

40    Vols.        oOO    Illiasti-ations. 
In  case,  numbered  and  supplied  with  50  catalogues. 


$7.50. 


A  Circular  descriptive  of  all  our  Economical  S.  S.  Libraries,  sent  to  any 
address  on  request. 

DODD,  MEAD  &  C0HFA1T7, 

751    Broadway,  N.  IT. 


IIY    TIIK 

AMERICAN   TRACT  SOCIETY. 


WHAT   "W^E    SAY: 


Our  Sheets  are  printed  from  the  best  plates  abroad.  The  Berean  Question  Book  for 
1878  adopts  the  references  of  our  "Large  Print  Edition,"  in  preference  to  any  other. 

Our  Helps  are  more  complete,  and  more  useful  for  the  teacher,  than  any  other  issued,  so 
far  as  we  know. 

Our  Maps  are  all  new,  and  brought  down  to  the  latest  authorities. 

Our  Levant  Bindings,  unsurpassed  by  any  in  the  world,  are  all  full  flexible,  and  will 
open  so  the  sides  of  the  back  will  touch  without  injuring  them.  We  invite  critical  comparison 
and  examination. 

Our  Prices  are  as  low  as  books  honestly  made  can  be  sold. 

Our  Prices  are  uniform,  and  we  do  not  make  a  discount  to  any  one. 

WHAT    THEY    say: 


F.  L.  Hitchcock,  Esq.,  Scranton,  Pa.,  says,  "  The  print,  the  paper,  the  helps,  the 
maps,  the  tables — including  more  than  any  other  edition  I  ever  saw — and  the  binding,  all 
are  grand." 

National  Sunday  School  Teacher,  Chicago.  "  For  long  patient,  conscientious  study, 
it  will  afford  just  the  help  that  is  needed,  and  is  worth  double  the  same  priced  '  Bagster.'  " 

The  Sunday  School  Times.  "  It  is  truly  a  good  thing  done,  and  worthy  the  name 
given  it — a  Sunday  school  teacher's  special  edition  of  God's  word." 

The  Examiner  and  Chronicle,  New  York.  "Before  all  others  we  place  the 
'  Teacher's  Bible  '  by  the  Tract  Society." 

The  Commercial  Advertiser,  New  York,  says,  "  The  Tract  Society  has  the  finest 
bindery  in  the  country.  Its  editions  of  the  Teacher's  and  other  Bibles,  bound  in  Levant 
morocco,  and  sewed  with  silk,  are  the  best  specimens  of  binding  to  be  found  in  either  Europe 
or  America." 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  H.  Vincent,  of  New  York.  "  We  prefer  the  Teacher's  Bible  to  every 
other.     It  is  published  by  the  American  Tract  Society." 

John  B.  Smith,  of  Hartford,  Conn.  "I  made  an  even  exchange  of  anew  $14  Bagster's 
Bible  for  your  '  Large  Print '  Bible,  mainly  because  the  type  of  yours  was  so  much  better.  I 
like  the  binding,  the  paper,  the  marginal  references,  and  the  helps  better  in  yours." 

Rev.  J.  W.  ^Villmarth,  in  the  Baptist  Teacher,  closes  a  long  article  on  Teacher's 
Bibles,  as  follows  :  "  My  conclusion  is  that  the  American  Tract  Society  have  made  a  better 
Bible  than  Bagster's.  I  do  conscientiously  commend  their  Teacher's  Bible  as  the  best  to  be 
had,  and  advise  our  teachers  to  buy  it  in  preference  to  all  others." 

SPECIMEN  PAGES  sent  .free  to  any  address,  and  all  inquiries  gladly 
answered.  The  .American  Tract  Society  h.-is  a  very  large  list  of  first-class  books,  suitable 
for  Sabbath  School  Libraries.  Schools  will  do  well  to  see  our  catalogue,  and  stock  when 
getting  new  Books. 

CATALOGUES  FREE. 

Address  H.  N.  THISSELL, 

No.  1512  Chestnut  St.,  Philadelphia, 

District  Secreturj'.  American  Tract  Society. 


o 


crq 

3 


o 

f6 


M 

0 


I 


Talks  About  India: 


BOYS  AND   GIRLS 


Rev.  a.  D.  ROWE,  M.  S., 

MISSIONARY   TO    INDIA,  OF   THE  "  CHILDREN'S  MISSIONARY 
SOCIETY  "of   the   LIITHIJIIAN  CHUECH. 


PHILADELPHIA. 

LUTHERAN   PUBLICATION    SOCIETY. 

42    NORTH     NINTH     STREET. 
1878. 


1855.  1878. 

LUTHERAN 

Publication  Society. 

NO.  42  NORTH  NINTH  STREET 

PHILADELPHIA. 


J,  K.  SHRYOCK,    -    -    SuperinteiKient. 


PUBLISHERS  OF 


Lutheran    Books,  Church    and    Sunday-school   Requisites,    The 
Fatherland  Series,  etc.,  etc. 


Augsburg  Teacher.— Monthly. 

j^  Cents  fer  Year.     Postage  prepaid. 


Lutheran  Sunday-school  Herald. 

zoo  Copies,  Monthly,  $ij.oo  per  Year.      Postage  prepaid. 


Augsburg  Lesson  Leaves. 

TOO  Copies,  Monthly,  $g.oo  per  Year.     Postage  prepaid. 


Augsburg  Primary  Lesson  Leaves. 

too    Copies,  Monthly,  $g.oo  per  Year.     Postage  prepaid. 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 
LOS  ANGELES 

TTRPARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9-427n-8,'49(B5573)444 


I 


X         Lutheran  church 
8041     First-  fra©-Luth. 
A5          eran  diet  in 
1 1&77  __Aiiierica. 


5SrN  REGIONAL  LlBl^VfACIUTY 


AA    001216  790    4 


•4.^ 


8041 

A5 

1877 


